251. The world according to Hitchens

Comment #258057 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #258048 by al-rawandi

Al, I am on a mission to moderate your language.

Can I suggest "not terribly good" as against "utter shite"?

Hmm, perhaps not. What about "crap"?

252. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #258054 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 11:47 am

Comment #258052 by Sciros

This is an important discussion. Defenders of religion attempt to define necessary attributes of atheism. Any idea that atheism can be the foundation of beliefs, as against a consequence, needs to be dealt with.

253. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #258053 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 11:46 am

Riley-

I certainly never stated that religion can have no content, just that it need not have any.

In that case it isn't religion.

Your argument ignores a very simple fact. Atheism can arise out of lack of ever hearing of the concept of religion.

Atheism is not a scaffold on which ideas can be built, because it has no content. There is no foundation, no framework, nothing. Atheism is absence.

It is as meaningless to state that atheism must have content as to state that your non-belief in Thor must have content.

254. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258051 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

Incidentally, I am really disappointed with you lot. You should know from past threads it is

WWSZHD... it's HUSBAND!

255. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #258043 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 11:32 am

Comment #258002 by mjr1007

Don't you grow tired of hearing me chide you for not citing.

Gosh no. Such attention panders to my narcistic nature.

But if you want citations, I refer you to the works of Ludwig Boltzmann on the matter of probability. Look him up wikipedia, and that will start you off.

Either Boltzmann, a (sad) genius whose ideas led to the vast and wonderful field of thermodynamics, is right, or you are.

Me, I go with Boltzmann, and hence Ockham.

As for Einstein and relativity, again you have taken a gun, aimed it very carefully at your foot, and fired.

General Relativity is a beautiful set of ideas. It is beautiful because it is simple. The concept is strange (as Mitchell points out), but the principles are very simple, and again extend the idea of relativity that was largely initiated by Galileo. It takes the idea of all motion being relative, and the idea of absolute motion being meaningless (the laws of physics being independent of speed), and extends this to describe the relationship between accelerated frames of reference. It makes things even simpler, by making the laws of the universe even less dependent on the state of the observer, and so conforms beautifully to the principles of Ockham's Razor.

256. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257999 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 10:26 am

Riley-

If a person believes something, and that belief can not be plausibly supported by scientific evidence (i.e. it's a supernatural belief), do you disagree that it should be called a religious belief ?

That depends if they think it can't be supported by scientific belief. As I said, most believers think it can... you could scientifically observe a miracle.

Exactly, none of that content (including the content that lead to the violence in Northern Ireland or the 9/11 bombings) is a necessary component of religious belief. Similarly, none of the content made part of atheism (including the "League of the Militant Godless" content that lead to the violence in Bolshevic ruled Russia) is a necessary part of atheism.

That isn't the point I am making. I was arguing with your point that religion was content free. It isn't. If it is content-free, then it is something else, such as bare theism. Religion always has a content. Saying that religion can have no content is equivalent to saying that a philosophy can have no ideas.

257. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257992 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 10:15 am

Comment #257984 by mjr1007

Athough I am the first to emphasise the difference between theism and religion, it is really is only a theoretical difference, and doesn't occur in practice. I have never heard of anyone who says "there is a God but who cares?"

Diacanu's point was a very good one.

Perhaps you would like to point out why anyone would bother with the unwieldy God hypothesis if they aren't religious. It is just such a waste of time, and struggling to throw out Ockham's Razor to try and justify use of the term "God" is a sign of someone who is religious attempting to excuse their theism. That kind of feeble special pleading strongly suggests a religious motive.

258. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257977 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 9:59 am

mrj-

I was actually responding to SZ saying that Occam's Razor made evolutionary, (small obvious steps) easier. My response was to point out that it was an independent variable to the size of the steps and large breakthroughs also work with Occam's Razor. Of course it was completely off topic it was interesting.

And, quite cleverly, I thought, you proved yourself wrong by providing two examples that contradicted the very point you were trying to make.

You seem to be confusing "size of the breakthrough" with the way theories are developed, which is in small steps, using Ockham's Razor.

String theory was derived via a small step from the Standard Model - to assume that a model that described Quantum Chromodynamics could be applied generally. The implications of that were huge, and the possible breakthrough if it was true immense, but the assumption was a just a small step.

Special Relativity was inevitable - it was a small step once the principles of electromagnetism were discovered.

Ockham's Razor is a vital part of both our everyday rational behaviour and of the way we rationally investigate reality.

If you want to know where it comes from, it has strong links with propability and complexity. One of the features of reality is that simplicity arises spontaneously more often than complexity. This means that simple origins and explanations for things are more credible than complex origins. Ockham's Razor is partly about providing more credible explanations because of this feature of reality. The more complex the thing you expect us to have appeared spontaneously, or to have existed forever, the less likely we should consider what you say to be true. Gods, even if they are not infinite, involve minds. Minds are the most complex things we know of. If you are invoking some kind of mind as having always been in existence, or to have arisen spontaneously from nothing, then we are justified in saying that your suggestion is wildly improbable, and in rejecting it.

That is what Ockham's Razor is all about here.

259. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #257915 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 8:51 am

Comment #257914 by KRKBAB

Yes. It is so arrogant. It is equivalent to copying yourself (providing another voice with the same thoughts), and then pointing to the copy and saying - "see him? He knows everything about everything"

260. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257912 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 8:45 am

Comment #257843 by Riley

Religion is based on the ideological content that you don't need scientific evidence to justify belief in something. A religious person would assert that personal experience is sufficient.

I disagree. That is the way religion tends to be presented today, but it isn't the way religion originated I am sure.

Most religious people think there really is good rational evidence for their beliefs. They believe that miracles actually happen and can be observed, for example.

I think it is important that we realise that atheism and religion aren't even the same kind of thing. Atheism has zero content apart from the absence of belief. Theism can potentially have zero content apart from the belief that there is an intervening God.

Atheistic movements have and do unecessarily add belief-specific ideological content such as the belief that "religion poisons everything" or that "religion is the opiate of the masses".

Sure, they can do. Theism can add a Trinity, or beings that throw lightning. But they need not have such associated attributes.

Atheism is not equivalent to religion.

261. Sherri Shepherd, Bill Maher Spar Over God: Bill Tells Sherri She Should Go To Psych Ward

Comment #257908 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 8:37 am

Although funny, and very appropriate for the context, Maher was a bit cruel. I have heard some finding recently that hearing voices isn't uncommon, and may be considered a normal part of human experience. Problems arise when you start to think the voices are not in your head, or have special authority.

262. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257905 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 8:33 am

Comment #257893 by mjr1007

There is another general principle other than Ockham's Razor that I find helpful in discussions.

"If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging"

263. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257863 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 7:53 am

Comment #257857 by Philip1978

Let's have ALL those Gods! Without Ockham's Razor, we can have as many as we like all at the same time. We need not worry about them being infinite and so crowding each other out - we can make space in the higher infinities that mrj has so impressively mentioned.

264. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257851 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 7:43 am

Comment #257849 by al-rawandi

You got it :)

I never said this if anyone asks

Oops, sorry.

....


I think I shall now abandon the use of Ockham's Razor.

String Theory states that what we consider particles are vibrating strands of energy or something like that.

I insist that they aren't strands of energy that vibrate, but fairy wings. Particles are actually all fairies dancing.

I insist that this is considered an acceptable hypothesis, and I demand that any tests of String Theory should not just look for the 11 dimensions the Fairies need, but should add another few spatious and well-furnished dimensions for the Elves. What Elves? Well, I just decided to add them to my hypothesis. I have decided to arbitrarily multiply entities.

265. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257840 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 7:33 am

mrj-

This argument would allow you to say that relativity was just a natural evolution from classical physics.

It was! It was based on ideas such as Galilean relativity, and Electromagnetism.

Couldn't tell you, since I've never made the claim of an infinitely powerful being.

Stop using words like "God" then.

I am going to politely ask you to stop posting for a while for the sake of my health. I am laughing too much at what you write :D

On the other hand, laughter is healthy. Do you have any more extremely bad examples from science, like the String Theory and Relativity ones?

266. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257834 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 7:26 am

Comment #257830 by lol mahmood

I have had a go at his cosmological arguments:

http://zarbi.livejournal.com/143957.html

267. Respect for religion now makes censorship the norm

Comment #257823 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 7:01 am

SPAM: Is yOur D0rrit L1ttle? Make it BIG with DICKens V1agra!

268. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257821 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 6:58 am

Comment #257819 by lol mahmood

a WL Craig debate

I need no more information than this to feel your pain.

269. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257809 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 6:31 am

Comment #257807 by lol mahmood

Sorry. The context of what I was saying was unclear. I was actually agreeing with you and disageeing with Riley.

270. Debate: Would We Be Better Off Without Religion?

Comment #257799 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 6:13 am

Religion indeed has content. The opposite of atheism is theism, not religion.

Just believing in God (theism) does not affect one's life. It is believing that God wants you to do something (theistic religion) that does.

271. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #257798 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 6:08 am

Comment #257789 by al-rawandi

But I am sure you don't have hostility towards Muslims.

I suspect you have hostility towards Islam, and some of its more extreme believers.

There is a big difference.

272. Respect for religion now makes censorship the norm

Comment #257783 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 5:36 am

Comment #257780 by JAMCAM87

Ideally we should be absolutist about freedom of speech

Absolutism of any kind is a problem. I am trying to think of a quote. It goes something like this: "free speech does not include the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre".

273. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #257746 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #257742 by Iftikhar

Faith schools are divisive. There are plenty of opportunities for children to be educated in faith outside of schools.

Our culture includes the principle that children are not the property of parents. That means the state has a role in ensuring that children are educated to a good standard and integrated into society. Faith schools work against this.

274. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257739 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 3:39 am

And therefore, it's not a reasonable interpretation

Indeed. How do you test for the presence of an infinitely powerful and knowledgeable being? It is a pretty awful interpretation even without Ockham's Razor, as it isn't verifiable.

275. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257736 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 3:23 am

Less expensive experiments? Have you not heard of the LHC?

If you look at the history of experimentation, you will see that we did not start with the LHC.

We did not think..."let's pick a random energy scale and probe it".

As far as evolution is concern, I can see how string theory would be a natural evolution from the standard model, NOT!

Actually, it is. String Theory is based on ideas used to describe the strong force, which is, obviously, part of the standard model.

276. Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

Comment #257727 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 3:00 am

Comment #257722 by Quetzalcoatl

You actually highlighted interesting issues with inflation. It has been messed about with to ensure it fits all kinds of possible shapes of universe.

277. Do We Live in a Giant Cosmic Bubble?

Comment #257720 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 2:52 am

Comment #257695 by Quetzalcoatl

Inflation has no problems with the universe being closed. It simply makes the universe very, very, very big.

278. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257718 by Steve Zara on October 1, 2008 at 2:40 am

Comment #257622 by GoatBoy36

You will find I have now dealt with the problems regarding Fanusi's idea of treating all Muslims as a group in several posts, and with several arguments.

I am happy to list them very briefly now:

1. In terms of the principle of such a policy, I have discussed how it acts like racism, as it punishing people for matters that are not fully their choice, and it also punishes children.

2. Whatever one's view of such a policy, they would not be implemented by mainstream parties, and would require far-right governments to reject both national and international laws for its implementation. The election of such a far-right government is extremely unlikely.

I did not deal with such policies in detail until very recently, as my intention was primarily to wave a warning flag at people, to try and highlight that someone was posting policies that are usually associated with fascists and no-one else seemed to be reacting to that aspect.

I hope that clears everything up, and we can close this debate.

279. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257543 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Comment #257532 by Smith

I think you have latched onto an emotive thread trying to stir things up.

I note that most recent posts of yours have been targetted at me.

I wonder what your agenda is.

280. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #257527 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 2:52 pm

Comment #257480 by SteveN

The first is his description of the 'Goldilocks Zone' of Earth's orbit that, if it was a little smaller would result in all the water boiling away and if it was a little larger would result in all water freezing. He is forgetting, I think, local sources of heat and shade. Europa, for example, probably has vast liquid water oceans beneath its ice crust kept fluid by the heat generated by tidal forces on its core. I will be surprised if life is not found there. Mars has almost cerainly had liquid water in abundance in its history and may still have it some places. Any moon or planet with volcanic activity may provide niches of liquid water despite being a long way from the parent star.

Absolutely. The idea of the "Goldilocks Zone" has possibly been one of the most stifling ideas in the search for extraterrestrial life. I think it is likely that most life in the Universe will be found away from Earth-like planets.

It may well be that life thrives even outside of solar systems. Many planets are probably ejected from orbit around stars during the formation of planetary systems. Such extra-stellar planets are likely to have vast atmospheres of hydrogen, because there is no heat or stellar winds to eject such atmospheres. The blanketing effects of these layers of gas, combined with radioisotope decay within planets could warm planetary surfaces to temperatures suitable for life for billions of years.

I think the investment to search for Earth-like planets containing water in other solar systems is a waste of time. Instead there should be a general search for the signature of life - planets with atmospheres out of expected chemical equilibrium, such as with excess oxygen or methane. Those are expected products of life.

281. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257511 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Comment #257501 by al-rawandi

He said a "temporary halt" to all Muslim immigration, which isn't precisely collective punsihment.

On the contrary. That is precisely what it is. It would require major repeat of national laws and international treaties because such a policy would indeed be collective punishment.

282. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257503 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 2:08 pm

Comment #257501 by al-rawandi

We can't just shut them out, we have to take the best of Muslim society and make it our own, that is cultural assimilation.

Precisely. Fanusi's approach was not just contrary to accepted standards of human rights, it was counter-productive.

283. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257491 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #257487 by al-rawandi

If you think the British Parliament is bad, you should see the Australian one...

284. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257490 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Comment #257483 by al-rawandi

Treat people as individuals.

That, my dear fellow, is why you and Fanusi are light-years apart ethically.

That is a precious view, and something we have to fight for in this world. It is surely one of the most important messages of a site like this - that deities don't pick certain groups to be special that those who believe and those who don't believe should have equal respect and rights, and that we are all equal products of a wonderful and natural process of evolution.

Now will everyone JUST STOP ARGUING!

Thanks.

285. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257477 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #257449 by al-rawandi

Bother. I can't resist. I will stop and go to bed soon. However, I would like to add a comment if you don't mind.

I don't think Fanusi's attitude to Muslims is analagous to racism. I agree with you, and I agree with Mitchell. But, I think his strategy is somewhat equivalent to racism.

I really don't believe Fanusi hates all Muslims. He has talked about some Jihadists who have reformed, after all.

My intense dislike of his views, and where he goes against principles of human rights is that he is willing to use group punishment. This is dehumanising. It treats people like herd animals and does not respect the dignity of the individual.

People can grow up in a culture, or religion, and wish to retain the identity of that culture for various reasons such as wishes of family, or to be within a social framework. They may have had the identity of that culture for all of a long life, or they may just be a child. They may even wish to retain the identity of that culture while having pretty liberal views, in contrary to the tradition of that group.

Yet, targetting groups says that all those people are equivalent, and they should all be denied rights because of words they rarely read, or don't follow, or because of the actions of a minority in that group that they reject.

I have had conflicted views about the relationship between possible analogies between culture, religion and race throughout my life. Currently, I think there can be similarities. One of the reasons why racism would be wrong, even if it were based on biological fact, is that people can't choose or change their race.

A child can't choose their culture or religion, and I believe it is unreasonable to ask an 80-year old to change theirs to a significant degree. There may be an argument about most adults taking responsibility for the views of the culture they were born into, but we again run into problems. Any attempt to categorise Muslims as against homosexuals does not take into account many small but active Muslim groups supporting gay and lesbian rights.

Group punishment, such as banning all Muslim immigration, isn't based on the same feelings as racism, but it has the same ethical problems.

That is what I think.

286. Pullman defiant over US protests against Northern Lights

Comment #257443 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:45 pm

Comment #257107 by Cartomancer

Small Gods is superb. Makes me forgive the very slight touch of homophobia in "Pyramids".

287. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257434 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #257420 by hawt4dawk

Don't worry - I loved the joke! It cracked me up. I know my faults, and if I can't laugh at them...

Comment #257402 by Corylus

Thank you for such wise posts.

I am going to finish off my contribution to this thread (I hope).

Al - you are like a bear with a sore head sometimes, but as Corylus said, if I was ever on trial, I would want you on the jury (if you could cope with decius there too, and Titania being my lawer).

Mitchell - you are interesting!

288. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257397 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 11:33 am

Al-

You had better not leave. I will be most put out. You are a bit fiery sometimes and can get carried away, but I can too, in my own way (I sulk instead).

289. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257377 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #257374 by al-rawandi

Hush. There isn't a person in this current conversation that I don't think is decent. But words have power and can result in disputes even between those who need not be rowing.

I say put it down to communication errors, and leave it at that.

I wish Dr Benway was here. She knew how to deal with such situations.

I also say we see if Dianelos is around anywhere, and tease him about Idealistic Theism.... anyone?

Ah well. It's my idea of fun.

290. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257373 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 11:10 am

Comment #257368 by Mitchell Gilks

I'm probably getting on your bad side about now,

That would be hard for you to do.

but I have to say...I thought that you agreed with my Hanlon's razor assessment?

I did for a bit. But I am not certain.

The only think I am sure of is that an adult has to take responsibility for what they say and write. Fanusi makes a great show of being informed and educated, and he clearly seems to be.

He doesn't mean anything by it, so neither do they.

I just can't accept that. I just don't believe that is a site of stupid kids, and I don't believe Fanusi is a stupid kid.

I believe him when he says that he didn't consider what was being said, and thought it was just words to not be taken seriously, and hold no implications. I think that is what he really thinks.

I don't think that is any excuse, even if it is true. He is dealing with very important and sensitive topics, and throws around serious accusations here about those who challenge him. If he doesn't take it seriously, then he should.

291. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257346 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 10:44 am

Comment #257339 by decius

If nothing else, dealing with the views of someone like Fanusi, especially as there is no sign of any flexibility about core views, is extremely tiresome and requires a lot of work.

292. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257340 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 10:38 am

Comment #257329 by al-rawandi

I agree with you. I don't believe Fanusi is a racist. My impression (and I think there is evidence for this) is that he is something of a fanatic, and is prepared to compromise or neglect ethics in order to obtain allies. I think I would prefer someone who was honestly racist (at least there would be a definite opinion to address with argument) than with amorality fueled by zealotry.

293. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257276 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #257248 by Sciros

I think some key points about what has been going on in the past couple of days have not been made as clear as they might have been. Things are much more subtle, and important, than simply finding out that someone has unpleasant associates.

My views about the contents of Fanusi's posts have not changed as a result of the discovery of that apalling site. I have always been highly suspicious of them, because of the dogmatic nature of their presentation and the constant re-iteration of things that have been rebutted, the repeated demands for responses that have already been posted, and the constant spin, always with a certain slant. (Maybe my long experience of certain tabloid styles in the UK has given me experience of that). The hijacking of each new threat with the same agenda, and a certain agressive style used to put down any challengers. This alone is pretty much enough to justify the use of labelling of posts as trolling (even though that may not quite be the best term).

What the site revealed was inconsistency and hypocrisy. Whatever the reason for including Sarah Palin's anti-gay-marriage opinion in a post, even if it was just a mistake, it shows a deeply worrying and casual attitude to human, and specifically, gay, rights, especially coming from someone who uses the topic of gay rights to constantly (and justifiably) condemn Islamic views on this subject.

Then there was the matter of association. It was Fanusi who repeatedly tells us that evil will prosper if good men do nothing, yet he associates with those who casually mention slaughter and use of gas chambers. What does he say? Nothing. He has to have the vileness of such words pointed out.

The reason why I, and, I believe, others here feel that Fanusi has lost integrity and credibility is not because of the political slant of his posts, or those whose companies he keeps on another website, it is that he rails at us for action against those who would preach slaughter, but says nothing when those who he is apparently amicable with preach slaughter. He declares we must fight against the abuses of human rights by the Muslim community, while he is causual about the same rights elsewhere.

This demonstration of double-standards and inconsistency should at the very least, even if one tries to look at things in the best light, mean that anything he posts should be considered highly suspect - is he posting an argument he really believes, or is this just propoganda - some fear-spreading targetted at a particular audience?

This site should be for honest debate. I think there is good evidence that with Fanusi we have not been getting such honesty.

I hope this answers Mitchell's points as well.

294. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #257090 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 3:52 am

Comment #257085 by Invisible Talker

I guess you could be a stickler for words and insist it's a choice. But all it really is, is a sound logical principle that says you should not make answers more complicated than they need to be. I agree with this principle. It seems that you do not. Feel free to argue against it being a sound principle.

I think Ockham's Razor is also useful because it makes economic sense - fewer assumptions usually means simpler and less expensive experiments!

Another reason Ockham's Razor is useful for theories is for good evolutionary reasons - it allows ideas to evolve by selection of small steps. As you approach what may be the truth, it is better to only change a few variables (make a few assumptions) at a time otherwise you could be way off.

295. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257087 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #257077 by Ian

Dianelos' tactic is one of the weirdest I have ever come across. He does not say that the universe is so complex that it requires a creator. He says that the universe is too weird to be physically real.

From there, he says that the universe must be all mental, and we are all part of God's mind. Oh, and by the way, that mind must be in 3 parts (woo! a Trinity!) and, as God can manipulate minds, and what is in minds is all that is real, the appearance of miracles (such as resurrections) is easy.

It's basically a supernatural virtual world designed to support boring old Christianity.

296. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257066 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 2:16 am

Comment #257062 by Diacanu

I agree, but I think it is worth considering how someone new to the site might react without knowing any history.

297. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #257057 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:47 am

Comment #257055 by alan baylis

I agree. Forgive me, Laurie, for having not said this sooner.

298. 'God as Science Fiction'. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #257045 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:22 am

Comment #256742 by Diacanu

I think Paula does a great job. However, I found this (I hope you will forgive me, Paula):

http://snap2grid.blogspot.com/2008/08/edinburgh-book-festival-edinburgh-book.html

"The Edinburgh book festival is now in full flow and I've just been along with Lesley to see Richard Dawkins (famous scientist) give a talk. All was going pretty much as expected, arrive early, see huge queue, guy with new iPhone (non-famous member of public) behind us, start going into the tent where the talk was being held. We found a seat and sat down. No problem, until this proved to be the very wrong seat indeed when Lesley spotted Iain Banks (famous author) having walked in as part of the audience.

...
...

The talk proved to be an interview chaired by Paula Kirby (famous, er, non-famous? I really have no idea)"

Indeed. It would be nice to know more about Paula's background in the media. She is clearly experienced.

299. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257038 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:15 am

DG-

No my basic argument is that the more one studies all the issues the more reasonable theism becomes in comparison to naturalism.

Theism is never more reasonable than naturalism. A non-naturalist investigation of reality doesn't actually make sense. The way to determine what is real (as against imaginary or abstract) is through physical experiment. All physical experiments require physical interactions, so involve naturalistic models of reality.

If you won't accept physical experiments, all you are left with is ontological arguments, and the invalidity of those has long been established, as you need to demonstrate not just that the argument is valid, but that it describes reality. To do that you need ... guess what? Experiments.

300. Why There Almost Certainly Is a God, By Keith Ward

Comment #257033 by Steve Zara on September 30, 2008 at 1:07 am

DG-

Also, contrary to what Stenger in that article says, superluminal motion or signaling has in fact been observed

No. I know of this phenomenon, and it is not neither superluminal motion or signalling. Superluminal tunnelling is a well-established phenomenon in QM, and in no way contradicts special relativity. The reason is that you cannot use it in real time. You can only determine the speed of which the information was transmitted retrospectively, by which time it is of no use for the transmission of information superluminally.

It is not motion as there is no such thing as motion in the tunelling gap of such experiments.

You can only use the information at the point at which you know it has been transmitted. The time between the information being sent, and you being able to tell that it has been sent, is always long enough that Special Relativity is preserved.

If true superluminal communication had ever been demonstrated, especially as long a go as you suggest, then several Nobel Prizes would have been awarded.

Also, you need to pick your sources with more care. I have been following Cramer's work for a long time. He is a great guy with interesting ideas, but hardly mainstream. Cherry picking eccentric scientists is not honest.

Try again.

Also, a very big So What?

Even if all current physics is wrong, even if we don't have a clue about the way the universe works, you don't get to introduce theism into the gap.

To introduce theism you need to build testable theories from the ground up. Theories that accept the fallibility of the human mind and reasoning. Theories that are experimentally falsifiable. So, you are wasting your time rubbishing QM. You need to work on your theist theories and how they can be tested.