Mysterious Cosmos [the anthropic principle]

Nature Magazine ^ | 06 August 2004 | Philip Ball

[AndrewC]

But genetic engineering was developed by people who mad just-so stories and tested them and made new and better stories.

Nope. The just-so stories did not have anything to do with "genetic engineering".

[VadeRetro]

You inserted the word "God" in your "premise 2." ... All I attempted to show was that there is some uncaused being.

This could be all right, if something that makes pond scum look sophisticated will do for an uncaused being. However, that would put your post 22 in the position of injecting the existence of some uncaused thing simpler than pond scum as a rebuttal to a potential claim of the non-existence of God. "It's basic metaphysics. If you say there is no God ..."

You're not making any consistent sense here.

[Arthur McGowan]

I never said one way or the other what an uncaused being would have to be LIKE. But that question comes after the question of whether it is even POSSIBLE for the entire universe to be composed of caused beings. It is impossible.

[VadeRetro]

But that question comes after the question of whether it is even POSSIBLE for the entire universe to be composed of caused beings.

Entirely composed of them? The universe seems to be very, very lightly populated with beings. ;)

It is impossible.

I have not seen a demonstration of this point worth the powder to blow it up.

[VadeRetro]

Note that even an abiotically grown, needs-to-evolve-some-to-be-pond-scum being is not totally uncaused. It just not caused by a being. A chain of being need not terminate in an uncaused being.

[tpaine]

Arthur McGowan wrote:

Denials of the existence of God are actually assertions that there is no being which has some kind of authority over man.

Exactly true. -- "There is no being which has some kind of authority over man", in a Constitutional sense.
Feel free to preach that God exists, but do not insist that your peers obey Him.

There is nothing in the Constitution which asserts or implies that men are not obliged to obey God's law.

Are you claiming that I am obliged to obey your vision of "God's law"?

[PatrickHenry]

Anthropic, uncaused placemarker.

[William Terrell]

I'm defending my rights to life, liberty, & property, -- from the overzealous extremists of both sides.

So am I. Keep it up. You're much more enjoyable on the drug threads.

[Arthur McGowan]

You are obliged to act in accordance with what you sincerely believe to be the truth.

There is still nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion. The Constitution is NOT the source of any of our rights. It is a legal instrument by which we delegate to the federal government certain functions.

[tpaine]

Strange that you can't quite understand that I'm defending those selfsame freedoms, -- life, liberty, property, -- on those threads, as on here. -- Curious myopia you have, imho.

[William Terrell]

Strange that you can't quite understand that I'm defending those selfsame freedoms, -- life, liberty, property, -- on those threads, as on here. -- Curious myopia you have, imho.

So am I. I'm just giving my opinion, from my first post to my last. I don't seek to set those opinions up as laws or prohibitions. The only defense needed against me is philosophical.

[tpaine]

Exactly true. -- "There is no being which has some kind of authority over man", in a Constitutional sense.
Feel free to preach that God exists, but do not insist that your peers obey Him.

There is nothing in the Constitution which asserts or implies that men are not obliged to obey God's law.

Are you claiming that I am obliged to obey your vision of "God's law"?

There is still nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.

Not true. I am guaranteed both freedom ~of~ religion and freedom ~from~ the establishments of any particular religion. Any effort to make me obey your "God's law" would infringe upon my guarantee.

The Constitution is NOT the source of any of our rights. It is a legal instrument by which we delegate to the federal government certain functions.

Yep, -- ALL levels of government in the USA are required to honor the principles of our "Law of the Land". -- Great concept.. Too bad many Americans can't quite seem to 'get it'.

[Arthur McGowan]

There are books that ably set out the basic metaphysical principles involved. If you haven't seen them, you haven't looked.

[RadioAstronomer]

I'm not good at creationist math, but I believe that 1⁷²⁰ is one of their highest numbers.

LOL! Sorry, I have been off for a bit. Had a paper to complete from the conference I was at last week.

[tpaine]

Strange that you can't quite understand that I'm defending those selfsame freedoms, -- life, liberty, property, -- on those threads, as on here. -- Curious myopia you have, imho.

So am I. I'm just giving my opinion, from my first post to my last. I don't seek to set those opinions up as laws or prohibitions. The only defense needed against me is philosophical.

Very coy wording, but your opposition to principles of constitutional philosophy, -- first to last, -- tells the tale, imho.

[William Terrell]

Very coy wording, but your opposition to principles of constitutional philosophy, -- first to last, -- tells the tale, imho.

Oh, not atall. I just said that words on the constitutions don't confir moral strength to an individual, they just serve to remind the state of my tagline.

[Jaguar1942]

History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help......

God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks, please. Cash and in small bills.

The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.

There, from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, tells you how I feel about this whole conversation in a nutshell...

[Arthur McGowan]

The Constitution is irrelevant to this discussion because we weren't talking about law at all.

If there is a God, you are obliged to obey his laws. This has nothing to do with any other human being coercing you. And it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

[tpaine]

There is still nothing in the Constitution that is relevant to this discussion.

Not true. I am guaranteed both freedom ~of~ religion and freedom ~from~ the establishments of any particular religion. Any effort to make me obey your "God's law" would infringe upon my guarantee.

The Constitution is NOT the source of any of our rights. It is a legal instrument by which we delegate to the federal government certain functions.

Yep, -- ALL levels of government in the USA are required to honor the principles of our "Law of the Land".
-- Great concept.. Too bad many Americans can't quite seem to 'get it'.

The Constitution is irrelevant to this discussion because we weren't talking about law at all.

Yes, art, you were taking about law. "God's law". Remember?

If there is a God, you are obliged to obey his laws.

There you go again.. Nope, not under our Constitution, Art.. Learn to live with it.

This has nothing to do with any other human being coercing you. And it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

Feel free to rant on kiddo. -- I'm off to bed.

[Mamzelle]

re: Your poetic musings, though lovely, certainly don't point to a deity of any sort.)))

But poetry itself points at an intellect which has no rational necessity. Sarcasm does likewise.