Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #284738 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Comment #284728 by paulb

I would suggest though that the words "a simple original state of a universe" implies a beginning to the "eternal universe" you postulated.

I postulate no eternal universe. I have no idea how old the current universe may be, or may become.

But the Judeo-Christian God is considered of infinite wisdom, infinite goodness, infinite power, and is therefore infinitely more complex than any state of any universe than we can observe, so it makes more sense to assume that the universe as it was 5 minutes ago appeared spontaneously from nothing than to involve such a God.

1802. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284734 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:01 pm

Comment #284709 by decius

Strong atheism (or my own rejection even of the concept) is surely a good rational position.

Suppose someone asked if you believed in a flibble that lived in a wubble realm. Would you call yourself an a-flibbleist?

Wouldn't you first insist that before you labelled yourself, you would like to know what "flibble" was?

Suppose they said that in your lack of belief in "flibble", and your support for science made you an "anti-wubbleist"? Would that make sense to you?

Would you honestly say you were simply waiting for evidence before you believed in "flibble"?

That is the situation we are in now

Flibble = God
Wubble = supernaturalism
anti-wubble = naturalism

These terms get no more meaning by switching to the words above. Christian theologists won't give a constent meaning for Flibble/God. The distiction between Wubble/anti-wubble makes no sense, as wubble is not defined.

So, I say, let's dump atheism and ignore natural/supernatural arguments until the theists come up with some precise and coherent and consistent definition of "deity".

1803. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284725 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Comment #284724 by Wosret

Beautifully put.

If God does not need to be designed, and can be labelled as uncreated, then the simpler universe does not need to be designed, and can be labelled as uncreated.

1804. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284723 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Comment #284720 by paulb

Please read the following comment and deal with the arguments in it:

Comment #284704 by Steve Zara

1805. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284722 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Mike-

(The old error of mistaking existence for a logical predicate, where it is only a grammatical predicate, logically it is a quantification)

That is fascinating. So existence is 'x N' where N >= 1?

However, is there some other important factor here, which is possibility of existence. God does not exist, because He doesn't have the definition of an entity which could exist?

Is there a way to describe things aren't even eligible to put next to a multiplier? In other words, we don't say number of Gods = G x N, as 'G' is meaningless?

1806. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #284706 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 5:02 pm

Comment #284686 by phil rimmer

Sorry, but I just can't stand Beethoven.

For me, perfection is Sibelius.

1807. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284704 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:56 pm

Comment #284694 by paulb

Most Christians do not believe that God was created - he was uncreated. So, how can you ask the question "who designed the designer"? It is ridiculous to postulate this question until you first prove that God could not have been created ... and Richard Dawkins does not do this, at least,

If you won't accept that the universe was not uncreated, you have to allow us to accept that God was not uncreated.

Sorry, but you can't make up your own rules for you, and not let us play by them.

If you want to label God as uncreated, then you have to let us label the universe as uncreated.

If you then decide to play fair, we can talk about what it is more reasonable to pick as the uncreated thing - a simple original state of a universe, or a vast, complex, supermind.

I go for the universe. Playing by your own rules, so should you.

1808. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284703 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:51 pm

paulb-

Subsequently, there is only one God. Using the phrase "is" does not mean equals.

Yes, it does, sorry.

No amount of wriggling, or trying to use the word "have" in place of "is" will help.

It seems your arguments have been wrecked by this "logic" which you insist we need to learn more about.

"is" specifies identity. It means "equals".

1809. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284702 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Comment #284692 by Dianelos Georgoudis

You have run out of chances. Either provide hard evidence that minds can exist without substance, or you go into the troll-bin.

I don't mean words. I don't mean attempts to refute science. What you need to do is point us to an example of a single mind somewhere that exists without requiring a material framework.

Please do that.

1810. Church Preaches The Music Of Beethoven

Comment #284666 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:31 pm

If Vangelis isn't elevated to Sainthood within my lifetime, I will really start to doubt the judgement of the Catholic Church.

1811. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284664 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Comment #284663 by Dianelos Georgoudis

As I have pointed out earlier, I reject the "natural"/"supernatural" distinction as well.

I want evidence for what people expect me to believe in.

What evidence do you have that minds can operate without material substance, for example?

1812. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284661 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:26 pm

Dianelos-

Theodore M. Drange, an atheist academic philosopher (and author of "Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God") has I think put it very well: When confronted with any proposition P there are four epistemic alternatives: 1) One decides that P is meaningless, 2) One decides one has good reason for believing P is true, 3) One decides one has good reason for believing P is false, 4) One decides one has not sufficient reason for choosing either way.

Your discussion of a God is not coherent enough for me to determine if it has meaning or not.

I am happy for you to NOT call be an atheist. I don't dignify your description of a God as being coherent enough for me to know what you are talking about.

I don't care what you call your belief. I am just after (1) a consistent description of what you believe, and (2) hard evidence in favour of it.

1813. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284653 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm

Dianelos-

(Incidentally, the Mandelbrot set only looks complex, but in fact its Kolmogorov complexity - the only one applicable in this case - is extremely low.)

The analagous measure of complexity of the origins of a multiverse are (especially the Many-Worlds multiverse) also extremely low. I specifically chose the Mandelbrot set for this reason.

Your own criteria for rejecting hypotheses as unreasonable and absurd mean that you have to reject idealistic theism.

However, the complexities of the information and processing capabilities of minds are extremely high.

There is no need to wait for anything. We are discussing hypotheses.

Your "a mind has done this all" hypothesis is, by the standards you use to determine complexity, the least reasonable option of all.

The quantum multiverse requires nothing more than a simple wave equation propogating and interacting according to laws based on symmetry. We get subsequent complexity for free.

Idealistic theism requires a foundation of a mind, which is the most complex thing we have ever encountered.

By your own own standards of rejecting hypotheses, you have no option but to reject idealistic theism and accept a naturalistic explanation for reality.

1814. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #284644 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #284639 by Corylus

There have been recent events regarding Oddie that suggest he is either confused, or not the brightest apple in the picnic:

http://www.defamer.com.au/2008/05/beeb_audiences_not_jazzed_by_bill_oddies_insect_porn.html

Bill Oddie was also involved in a Time Team special, in which he did not come across well at all.

I just don't think he is that bright, unlike his fellow Goodies, Tim Brooke-Taylor and Graeme Garden, who I have been a fan of for a long time.

1815. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284640 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #284638 by Quetzalcoatl

Dianelos postulates an alternative system, but gives no details of any kind about what it would consist of.

In our real world we have neurons, and we have very good models of the interactions between them and how such interactions can result in the processing of information that is our conscious experience.

As yet, Dianelos has provided no details of what interacts, or how information processing is done, in his theistic reality.

1816. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284636 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Dianelos-

The real universe in which the computer simulation takes place may be a much simpler universe than ours, working under much simpler physical laws.

Our physical laws are just about as simple as they could be. They are based on principles of symmetry.

Perhaps in that universe it is a trivial matter to produce consciousness.

No. The complexities of conciousness and mind are not about the simplicity of physical laws. They are about the information-content of memory and the requirement for separation and identification of information for processing. These factors are independent of physical law.

My argument is not meant to show that if materialism is true then our consciousness is *not* produced by our brain, but rather that if materialism is true then, contrary to what materialists believe, there is no evidence and there can't possibly be any evidence for believing that our consciousness is produced by our brain.

So you don't get drunk when you have beers?

By the way, any progress with Quetz's questions, or your position on Ockham's Razor.

Incidentally, we have a general rule here. Three refusals to answer questions means that people are encouraged to consider you a troll, or at the very least, extremely rude.

You have one more chance.

1817. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #284631 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm

Comment #284630 by Corylus

I read that earlier today. I found it very sad.

1818. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284627 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Comment #284619 by epeeist

Thank you for that link!

1819. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284612 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:43 pm

They were dark and light, fickle, merciful and quick to anger. Very human.

Are you sure you aren't projecting your own attributes? :)

1820. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284610 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #284608 by Cartomancer

So, you need to come up with decent names for the deities of selfish genes and sightless watchmakers!

Also, for introns, and RNA regulators...

1821. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284606 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Comment #284601 by Cartomancer

You write so beautifully. What an interesting point of view you present. The Greek gods were almost like mini-deist "Gods" - essences of aspects of Nature.

1822. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284600 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #284594 by Quetzalcoatl

Hey, Quetz - it's that bollocks! I had forgotten the previous posts.

Comment #284589 by Quetzalcoatl

Yes, you are indeed right (as always), but it/he gave rise to offspring (such as Gaia), presumably supernaturally.

Comment #284590 by the great teapot

It was actually a picture of me contemplating a pint of lager.

1823. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284595 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Comment #284592 by Dianelos Georgoudis

According to theism it is mind that produces or causes matter, and not matter that produces or causes mind.

OK, so we have come to the heart of your beliefs.

We have vast evidence that matter can produce mind (if we alter matter, mind changes). But we have zero evidence that mind produces or causes matter.

So what you need to do is to provide us with hard evidence that mind can produce or change matter.

Also, have you sorted out whether or not you support the use of Ockham's Razor yet?

Comment #284593 by bollocks

I have a huge ego. Why should I do anything quietly?

1824. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284588 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Comment #284585 by the great teapot

The avatar is pre-return, and not quite appropriate.

Dianelos' posts aren't much of a challenge for people on this site these days.

1825. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284584 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Comment #284581 by Cartomancer

Weren't the greek Gods supposed to have connections with fundamental and unquestionably supernatural beings? Such as Zeus's grandfather being Chaos?

I am feeling a bit disappointed. I got myself all worked up with this new radical agenda, and I get all kinds of reasonable arguments against it.

1826. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284578 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Comment #284572 by phasmagigas

That really is quite a clever approach. If they bring design into the discussion, they have to show where the design stops. I like it!

I have recently been recently fascinated by the "Judo" method of dealing with arguments - don't look for direct flaws, but use the weight of the argument itself to defeat it.

1827. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284577 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Comment #284574 by epeeist

I just knew my simplistic ideas would be sabotaged by intelligent people posting things that I would have to look up.

However, as Wikipedia says that Paul Churchland is a vocal critic of Van Fraassen, I feel encouraged.

1828. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284569 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Comment #284565 by Dr Doctor

Someone is going to have to come up with a new T-shirt design.

1829. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284568 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #284566 by Wosret

Yes, Harris usually makes a lot of sense. My rejection of the term "atheism" is for even more radical reasons than his, though. Because "Theism" is not a meaningful position, then how can "atheism" be?

1830. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284567 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Dianelos-

I honestly think that Steve conflates the concept of "existence" with the concept of "physical existence" and therefore denies the existence of anything that does not comport with the properties one uses to verify the existence of physical things or of things that supervene on physical things. I think Steve is not alone in this; I think that's really what most atheists believe also.

Yes, I do deny the existence of any such thing. Any rational person does.

Perhaps you could explain how we are supposed to investigate the existence of non-physical things?

If you claim the existence of something, I want hard evidence. Your words are not enough.

You have provided precisely zero evidence for your beliefs. Unless you do provide hard evidence, then we can reject your beliefs as worthless.

1831. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284561 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:38 pm

Comment #284557 by Dr Doctor

I have had enough with conceding ground to the supernaturalists. My current opinion is that if we should not use terms like "atheist" or "naturalist", as these define ourselves relative to their absurd positions.

Perhaps by insisting that they first have to establish that the subjects they wish to debate are even reasonable to have a discussion about, we might make more progress. So, no more debates with theologians until they say what "God" means in detail and why we should accept the term as having any meaning.

I am in a radical mood.

Comment #284560 by Wosret

I am having fun with this radical mood! Don't try and talk me down.

1832. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284559 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Comment #284556 by phasmagigas

That is a very interesting thought, but I don't think that is the problem with ID, as ID supporters sometimes do say that there is something to designate design - irreducible complexity. ID does not say that everything is designed, just that a designer had to help things along.

1833. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284555 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #284553 by Wosret

I get what you are saying, but doesn't "naturalist" imply that there is something meaningful that isn't natural?

1834. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284554 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Comment #284550 by Dr Doctor

I am tired of the "natural" vs. "supernatural" debate. The terms make no sense. "Natural" was supposed to describe things that happen that aren't the result of the actions of men and Gods. The term "unnatural" is meaningless, as we are evolved creatures. The term "supernatural" cannot even be sensibly defined.

I say we abandon both terms. Reality is what rational investigation discovers, and that is it.

1835. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284546 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Actually, I might just as well take this opportunity to announce that I am no longer content to be identified as an atheist. To be an atheist is to give some justification to the use of the term "God". It presumes that there is some concept that is coherent enough for there to be a lack of belief in it. There isn't. I think it makes no more sense for me to say I don't believe in supernatural Gods than it would for me to say I don't believe in square circles.

I am a rationalist, a scientist, a skeptic. But let that be it.

1836. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #284528 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 11:45 am

Dianelos

Quetzalcoatl (comment #283868): Some people here claim that to posit 10^100 parallel universes just in order to maintain the viability of one's ontological beliefs comports with Occam's principle which literally says "Plurality should not be posited without necessity". For me to say that this is an unacceptable claim is not an argument from incredulity but an argument from absurdity.

Is the origin of the Mandelbrot set simple? Yes, it is! It is a very simple iterative process, yet the Set itself has infinite complexity.

Stop confusing the richness of results with the complexity of causes.

The problem about calling atheism a belief system is you theists never come up with any coherent definition of a God that we should not believe in.

We have shown you without doubt that the idea of the supernatural is incoherent. We have shown you that the definitions of God are contradictory.

I am afraid that all you are left with is that you believe something vague that you can't pin down exists.

That isn't good enough.

Incidentally, have you decided on your attitude to Ockham's Razor yet? If you abandon it to let God in, you can't use it to dismiss quantum theory. Also, if you allow arguments from absurdity, we can say that we consider your theism absurd.

That is one fun aspect to these debates. Whatever weapons you use we can use back at you.

1837. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284520 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 11:27 am

Comment #284519 by Quetzalcoatl

I like to spread my neuroses. As I say, a problem shared is a problem doubled.

1838. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284518 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 11:23 am

Comment #284515 by Dr Doctor

You need to be careful with chest infections. A friend of mine recently neglected an infection and was hospitalised (he is now recovering, but it was worrying).

1839. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284509 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #284504 by Dr Doctor

Your research into what actually happened has been admirable. I am even more impressed that you find time to deal with matters on the forums as well.

I am no longer sure that Waterstones' action was wrong. If someone wanted to use a business premises I owned for any kind of protest without consulting me, I would have little hesitation in telling them to get lost until they had learned some manners.

1840. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284485 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 9:38 am

Comment #284484 by mordacious1

No. Hangovers are a measure of spirits.

1841. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284472 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 8:59 am

Comment #284470 by Dr Doctor

I don't see Jesus as a unit of distance, more like a drag coefficient of the mind.

Indeed - just look at the hair and the dress...

Deities are are also measures of distance in the 4th dimension, as in the expression "Oh God! Is that the time?"

1842. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284449 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:55 am

Paulb-

I looked up Trinity on that site. I suggest others do. It is hilarious:

Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent.

Utter gibberish, as evidenced by a subsequent statement:

It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.

This is so nutty, it can only have come directly from God.

1843. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284448 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:49 am

Comment #284446 by decius

Does he mean it is like Imperial/Metric problems?

There's going to be problems in the Vatican if the EU tries to standardise God Units.

1844. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284445 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #284443 by paulb

You need to research this more.

The Father IS God, he does not have the nature of God. Same for the Son, same for the Holy Ghost.

This is a necessary characteristic, because the Trinity is monotheistic. If you are stating that F/S/H are separate persons, then you are a polytheist.

1845. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284444 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:44 am

Comment #284437 by paulb

We can then also say that there can be no being that has the greatest handicap, that of non-existence, since it, by definition, does not 'have' anything. Something lacking in everything is not something - it is a no-thing. It simply cannot exist, so the second last statement in this 'proof' is impossible to make.

If the last statement was impossible to make, but you say the statement was actually made (because you read it), then we have a problem. If you claim to have read a statement that could not even have been made then you are either fibbing, or you are yourself logically inconsistent, so cannot exist.

So, you are either fibbing, or fictional. Which is it?

1846. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284438 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:36 am

Comment #284418 by paulb

Let's do some logic then. Let's play the Trinity Game (with thanks to MPhil):

God (G) is a trinity, Father (F), Son (S), Holy Ghost (H).

But they are one, so

1. G = {F,S,H}

Now God the Father is defined as God

2. F = G

God the Son is also defined as God

3. S = G

The Holy Spirit is also defined as God

4. H = G

So, from 1:

F = {F,S,H}
S = {F,S,H}
H = {F,S,H}

expanding

G = {{F,S,H},{F,S,H},{F,S,H}}

and again

G = {{{F,S,H},{F,S,H},{F,S,H}},{{F,S,H},{F,S,H},{F,S,H}},{{F,S,H},{F,S,H},{F,S,H}}}

I shall stop there for now.

OK, there are two questions.

1. Precisely how many sons did God have?

2. Just who or what actually died on the cross?

1847. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284429 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:20 am

Comment #284427 by Quetzalcoatl

Indeed. Also, why do angels need wings?

1848. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284426 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:18 am

Comment #284417 by NMcC

It needn't be interpreted as a complaint :)

1849. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284424 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 7:17 am

Something that puzzles me.

If non-physical minds can exist, and can control things by force of will, why did God need to create brains and hands?

1850. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284403 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #284399 by paulb

It was a JOKE! It isn't even mine. It is a parody of the word games that some theologians play.

The point is to illustrate that "existence" is not a property of things that can be used in an ontological argument.