"Darwin Day" Topic

…would miss "Darwin Day" :) ….

We've got a new page!

You know what that means folks!

We've started a new page; so I didn't want TJ to use the excuse that he'd missed it. So here we go again, repeating my question of February 2nd, which repeated my question of January 26th, which repeated my question of January 21st, which repeated my question of January 19th, which repeated my question of December 15th, which repeaded my question of December 12th and so on……

TJ to remind you this is what I want answered:

When a Prof. of Biology gives a lecture on evolution that is then broadcast on Youtube, then the contents can be rejected because of it appeared on Youtube. So in what circumstances would that lecture be acceptable to the creationists? Could such a format also be shared with the rest of the TMP community?

Don't bother. TJ only employs the veneer of scientific inquiry when he asks his questions and "seems" to expose "problems" within evolution. The scientific validity of the Theory of Evolution is of absolutely NO interest to the Creatards and Idiots, TJ included.

What is of interest to them is their world view and how it will have to change if and when evolution becomes universally accepted. Atheism, increased secularism, materialism, humanism, modernism, scientism, and moral relativism are all the unwanted developments that spring from the 3 Great "Isms" that polluted the end of the European Enlightenment. These great developments of the 18th and early 19th century, Freudianism, Marxism and Darwinism were brought about to turn Mankind away from God. Freudianism and Marxism have already been shown to be empty and failed philosophies. Now the attention is to destroy the last great secular "ism" of Darwinism.

Where did I get all this nonsense from? A Creatard Website. This is also seen on the Discovery Institutes "Wedge Document". The DI IDiots freely admit that Darwinism cannot be defeated by employing the scientific method. A "Wedge" has to be driven between Scientific Inquiry and the understanding of the average person. Again, these people are NOT interested in the scientific validity of this Theory or any other for that matter. Evolution is a threat to the theological and philosophical "Weltanschauung" of their most deeply held convictions.

A quick overview of this thread will confirm the realization that logic, intelligent discourse and the meaningful exchange of ideas has nothing to do with this battle.

A comment made, in TJ's first entry to this thread, that I sought to challenge was:

I for one will lament what beliefs his theory led to and where they have taken mankind in the last 200 years.

I asked him what he meant. That was over a year ago. I have never got an answer from him, despite much prodding. Is anyone surprised?

Ralph

Hi

Ya, the conflict is simple.

1)premise one of christianity: man was made in god's image.

2)Man is an imperfect creature who must turn his life over to god to seek perfection.

3)unless we are talking about man's understanding which is fallen not because of his imperfection, but because he has science!

My pappy used to call this "arguing both sides against the middle".

R

"I am the voice of doom!"

Too late, Rocky's already used the words "Christianity" and "God". Doom approacheth but it shall not take ME!

Sure, the last 200 years are unarguably the most advanced, best improving and hopeful in all of human history. It is the combination of religious morality in society and enlightenment from scientific discovery. Take away one half and you have, well, half. Only the emotional, irrational minority are the vocal component that we typify the sides with. Why look upon the vast silent majority in the center as wanting anything to do with either extreme?…

Doom, some of us are fed up with the double standards on these board and quite frankly no longer care if we are sent to the Dawghouse. When Creationist Trolls can post with impunity and we are condemned for calling them on the posts where is the justice? When we talk science and point out it conflicts with a belief in an invisible pixy that has had stories about it repeated since the Bronze Age we are condemned. Is that fair? Claim you are defending religion you are safe you can post a complete load of santorum . Well Science, Rationalism, Humanism are the pillars of my Religion. I will defend them to the best of my ability. If that means I go to the Dawghouse, so be it.

Only the emotional, irrational minority are the vocal component that we typify the sides with. Why look upon the vast silent majority in the center as wanting anything to do with either extreme?…

Let me guess……you don't read much recent history. All you need is a vast silent center that does little to have the extremists prevail. You could have been describing Weimar Germany to a "T".

Plus the idea that morality comes only from religion is nonsense.

Ralph

No, religion comes from morality. No, wait. How about, morality and religion are two manifestations of the SAME human component that drives self-preservation? Once self-preservation is "guaranteed", then advancement begins – and with fits and starts it continues unless our species suffers extinction.

Yes, the last 200 years are the greatest in human history, but not without the inevitable fits and starts. The bigger the advancement the bigger the potential fits and starts. The nuclear age is unarguably the biggest danger ever posed to our survival, and WE created it!

But the flipside is that with that kind of power we can also change the whole planet into a virtual paradise. The only thing preventing that is US.

TJ's religious myopia is typical of the religionists who must see the world getting worse in order for their beloved apocalyptic prophecies to become reality.

But if the world is in fact getting better (and it still is) then there can be no separation of the wicked from the righteous, the damned (to be burned) and the saved (the enraptured, caught up to meet TFW upon his return). So their world view must see wickedness proliferating everywhere, directly assaulting the believers with persecution and worse. To prevent this they fight to have their "truth" reinstituted into the public school curriculum in the place of the "godless sciences"….

Evolution at work: this is how Cretards/IDiots work there superstition ino schools:

link

So if ONE issue (evolution) is attacked it's dismissed by the court because it's a "religious issue." But if you add on another issue or two (global warming, climate change), it suddenly shows that the previous attack wasn't based on a religious issue"?…

In the recent South Dakota resolution it is stated:

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;

--doesn't a scientific theory rate higher than a mere fact?

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena…

My bold…their bad. Astrology effects[sic] world weather?

*sigh*…one doesn't even know where to begin if it is desired to have a discussion with such folk.

Well, verbosity, as we all know, looks/sound impressive rhetorically. Cosmological and astrological sound like too different things, but in this case are meant to be the same thing (but are not), and at the same time increase the list length. One needs to be tossed because as used they are redundant. (obviously astrological is just plain wrong, so they would opt to toss that, but only after having it pointed out to them made dismissial of it too late….)

While I accept that global warming is happening, in no way can it be said to have the same proof as Evolution or plate techtonics or Germ theory ect.

While all theories are based on simple obervibale facts, the evidence behind each fact varies from theory to theory.

On one side you have Globalwarming, which is a fact, but a very new science and not everything is understood.

On the other side of the scale you have evolution, that got so much evidence behind it it should realy be in a leauge of it's own.

Both things are facts and we know are happening, it's just how much we know why it's happening thats diffrent

Observation #1: All living things change over time to such an extent that the world displays a bewildering degree of biodiversity.

Theory: The theory of Natural Selection is a model that best describes these facts.

This is the current consensus of every major scientific organization. The vast majority of peer reviewed research supports this consensus.

Observation #2: Carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are on the increase. The RATE of increase of these gases is unique within earth's history.

Theory: Whilst the earth has cycled naturally through periods of warm and cold in the past, the rapidity and extent of change now suggests a man made or anthropogenic cause. Currently the theory of anthropogenic global warming is the model that best describes these observations.

This is the current consensus of every major scientific organization. The vast majority of peer reviewed research supports this consensus.

Both theories stand upon the current evidence. As more evidence comes in these theories may be modified, adapted, or even thrown away. That is the nature of science. At this point, the vast majority of attacks on either of these theories consist of political and religious clap-trap, and have very little scientific validity.

As I said, that may change.

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, actually, not quite. The RATE isn't unique, only unusual. The issue is the suggestion that recently the rate of increase in CO2 is above the other several warming periods and that is MUST be human and it must be directly affecting the atmosphere. The last two premises are more politics than science at this point.

Evolution is and has been tested directly and observed directly. The better educated anti-evolution types insist that while evolution is observed SMALL, as in bugs and birds, "BIG" as in elephants isn', thus "god did it".

With GW, the data is less clear. Consensus works when you have observed and testable facts as Evolution has, not quite when the sum total of evidence is observational AND unclear.

R

Ralph, actually, not quite. The RATE isn't unique, only unusual.

Actually it is exactly like I explained it. Check the ice core article in Sci-Am last month.

Consensus works when you have observed and testable facts as Evolution has, not quite when the sum total of evidence is observational AND unclear.

No Rocky. Consensus works when the majority of climate scientists agree, and they do. That is the definition of consensus. The most prestigious scientific association in your country is the National Academy of Sciences. Apparently they are a lot less "unclear" than you give them credit for:

PDF link

link

As for testing, check out the computer modelling done by the NAS, reported by the UK's I-SIS.:

link

Here is a nice quote from The Royal Society, which is the oldest continually running scientific association in the world:

This statement has been approved by the Council of the Royal Society, and was prepared in consultation with 30 leading climate scientists. It is informed by decades of publicly available, peer-reviewed studies by thousands of scientists across a wide range of disciplines. Climate science, like any other scientific discipline, develops through vigorous debates between experts, but there is an overwhelming consensus regarding its fundamentals. Climate science has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations.

Here is the statement, which can be downloaded from the Royal Society's website:

link

No offence to your viewpoint Rocky, but I think I'll listen to these guys before I listen to politicians and wargamers.

Ralph

BTW, in the spirit of being totally transparent, my entire argument is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" or argument from authority.

Rocky appreciates false syllogisms as much as I do. How's this one?

"So and So" says A
"So and So" is an Authority
Therefore A is true

Of course, that is nonsense. However, I think that I should give more credence to policy statements issued by respected scientific associations over the ill informed and amateur musings found on the TMP. It's called "hedging your bets".

Ralph

Hi

Ralph, consensus isn't congruent with "majority". That is the other part of your fallacy.

And I would point out that I did read the article you mentioned in SAm. The problem is that the paradigm is different every time as the data never quite matches the graphs.

As I said, my area involving the ice is this: the world of archeology was rattled a couple years ago because of a long time assumption. the farms on Greenland were assumed to follow the usual pattern due to climate, that the coastal sites were the oldest and longest served, and that further inland would be progressively later establishments. In fact, as the ice retreats, the farms being uncovered are coincident in date with the earliest coastal remains. This means that the retreating ice wasn't there ca 900, with puts a wrinkle into the consensus claim that NOW is warmer or warmed up faster.

As an ex-programmer, I have looked at the modeling which always shows a problem in the curve fitting. In that it isn't possible in any of the models to imput variables that actually Don't produce "hocky stick" increase.

And the "Policy Statements" are another issue. The short version of the policies lead to solutions that are, in essence, anti-First World. You cannot tout "we are all gonna die" but then propose that the UK and the US reduce their economies to ANY level of pre-industrial production while still having the other 5.5 billion people continue to grow their output.

Either we all live like the kalihari bushman or someone is overstating the crisis.

Rocky

Ralph, consensus isn't congruent with "majority".

From Princeton web dictionary:

"…agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole."

Hard to do that without it being a majority. Not part of my fallacy.

This means that the retreating ice wasn't there ca 900, with puts a wrinkle into the consensus claim that NOW is warmer or warmed up faster.

No it's not a wrinkle. There are other factors outside of ambient worldwide temperature that the experts consider. One, that I remember, was a more northerly deviation of the Gulf Stream.

Either we all live like the kalihari bushman or someone is overstating the crisis.

Your distillation of this topic into such a simplistic scenario indicates that this conversation is effectively over.

Ralph

BTW, in the spirit of being totally transparent, my entire argument is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of "argumentum ad verecundiam" or argument from authority.

Actually I think this is a key part of the problem of us amateurs (with no disprespect to the credentials we do have) discussing both climate change and evolution. Because the universe is moderately large and slightly complex, our personal knowledge is unlikely to answer any given question. Because most of what we hear needs to be distrusted there isnt time to filter what we're told.

As a result, to a large extent we all cherry pick what we listen to, either because it fits with what we know, or more likely because it fits with what we'd like to be true.

I've been thinking more about the sources of opinion and information recently, and as far as I can tell there are few or none which are trustworthy in broadcast or general public print media, and web sources take a lot of checking. Curiously, wikipedia seems to be better than most – I'm guessing because the open editing process tends to shake out bias.

"…cherry pick what we listen to…it fits with what we'd like to be true."

I recall hearing about how a chemical is released inside our brains that gives us a "high" when we hear/think of something we like/believe to be true – making us addicts to truthiness.

The evolutionary tie to this is that "being correct" was/is humanity's advantage (as opposed to being fast or having big teeth or …) and reasoning/brainpower was selected for because figuring out stuff allowed one to live/reproduce more than one who didn't learn to avoid stuff that can hurt/kill you.

Science possesses a sort of Catch-22 in regards to this, insofar as -while it seeks to figure stuff out- one of its fundamental, core principles is "you may be wrong": a scientist is always hedging his/her bets and behind every theory is the tacit, default position that the future may show a new thinking that will make the current one obsolete.

The surety that comes with a mythological foundation of the universe doesn't have the doubt that hinders the total rush that truthiness provides. Threatening to take that away (by putting science, = doubt, at the center of knowledge/discourse in public policy and/or schools) is, perhaps, the cause of the fervor that has been/is associated with the subject.

Scientists are, in a sense, buzz killers who spoil the party.

You know that C. S. Lewis was an atheist? He argued with J. R. R. Tolkien for a prolonged period of time. The legendary turning point was when Tolkien said (words to the effect): "Your problem is essentially a failure of imagination." Lewis wasn't about to be trumped by Tolkien's imagination. It does take imagination to believe. So if "truthiness" is produced by a believing imagination, the only difference is chemical? Skepticism "starves" the brain of "truthiness"….

but, if "truthiness" is a product of brain chemisty so is skepticism. Just as correct to say that believing what you imagine robs you of skepticism.

I've thought for a long time that the tendency to believe without evidence and the tendency to question are by-products of the way our brain has evolved. I think most of us would recognise the sensation gweirda touches on – the elation of thinking you understand and have solved a puzzle or problem.

I'm guessing that much the same principle operates whether you solve in the classic logical sense or accept an outside doctrine such as a religion or political system. Individual heritance and environment/history will obviously affect the balance of believ-ism and skepticism in our own make-up.

Hi

Ralph, don't be closed minded…this is "over"?

The "As A whole…" isn't the same as "the majority". That is my point. The concern for me is that of "simplicity". GW is based on a concept that states a simple problem and a simple solution. When one quibbles with the details, the quibbles are dismissed with sloppy data or selected data.

And the reason I said the extreme "kalihari" thing is that proponents aren't thinking through the issue. You cannot demand GW and a solution without the context of that solution. If the premise is that the industrial revolution lead to the problem, then how do we end the industrial revolution? If in a previous post, the criticism is how much the WEST uses, how does it not be political?

Yesterday on NPR the UN has proposed a new solution that one should track the "actual" carbon footprint by, for instance, not letting the US to dodge it's obligation by paying the debt for the goods it imports.

But no suggestion is made of assessing the footprint of the aid the US is providing to the starving of thw world, or maintianing the forces that protect others.

Thus, to me, just saying "GW is real" cannot be separated from the "but capitalism is the problem".

R

Waiting…pondering…may as well blather a bit…

Imagination requires skepticism, maybe?

One must first doubt the status quo in order to look outside current thinking. (For the purposes of this thought I treat imagination to describe encountering an idea outside the scope of current/existing thought -not something beyond human thinking…which I don't see as possible.)

Most (all?) mythologies are just extensions of human behavior/life -and rather simplistic at that. Anthropomorphizing is so commonplace – it is as humdrum, yawn-inspiring an idea as one could NOT imagine? I mean: natural forces as powerful men/women, big sky-god all-fathers…hardly examples of imagination – more like the lack of it, IMO.

Secular thought has its own examples: descriptions/theories of nature acting in accordance with human-scaled parameters are indications of the limited tool-set available to understand what's what -- more than ever as we get past the "know enough to stay out of trouble long enough to breed/raise your replacements" level of survival/life.

String Theory is, perhaps, something indicative of imagination?

What is the biggest concept possible for you to imagine? Go ahead, try….

Mathematics proves there is a supreme being.

Pete

It does take imagination to believe.

Yes, it especially takes imagination to believe in imaginary things.

Skepticism "starves" the brain of "truthiness"….

???? Scepticism is an evolutionary "tool" developed to discern reality from BS.

What is the biggest concept possible for you to imagine? Go ahead, try….

Why waste the time wandering down this meaningless avenue? Why delve into badly rehashed Anselm's ontological nonsense on a Science board?

Ralph

Because nobody seems mentally capable of discussing such things on TBF? Because I can't help myself? "Must delve, must, delve…."

DotDHoD,

You are actually correct on the last point. Maybe a "Philosophical Notions" Board would be good. I'd be a little more prone to go to the "Meaning of Life" Board if the foetid cesspool of the "I hate Obama" Board didn't overflow into it every 2 days. I have no use for my Fez and may turn it in.

So let us "delve":

1) Anselm's argument is still nonsense. Can you cite one modern thinker or philosopher whose work stands on Anselm's Ontological proof of God?

2) CS Lewis was never an atheist. He called himself one to make his "born again" conversion seem more significant to his writings. He went through a 15 year period of scepticism and lucidity where he studied the natural sciences and read Lucretius. He describes himself during this period as being "very angry with God for not existing". He eventually drifted back into the strict Christianity of his childhood.

The scepticism and lucidity were not needed for his new found career as a Christian apologist, and so disappeared from his life forever.

Ralph

1) Anselm's argument is still nonsense. Can you cite one modern thinker or philosopher whose work stands on Anselm's Ontological proof of God?

Philosophers are into limited topics. Nothing but "God" is infinite. Everything else, being finite, has an explanation/cause: BUT "God", being the only infinite thing, has no explanation except by the ontological argument. The argument and "God" form a unique relationship.

Saying that Anselm's argument is nonsense doesn't make it so. It just doesn't work for anything else but the NC.

He describes himself during this period as being "very angry with God for not existing". He eventually drifted back into the strict Christianity of his childhood.

Okay, if Lewis wasn't ever an atheist even when he said he was, why should I accept your claim to be an atheist? If Lewis had stayed an atheist, then you'd accept that? But it's impossible for an atheist to "convert" to theism? If someone does, then no self-respecting atheist would ever allow that such a person was ever, in fact, a genuine atheist….

Okay, if Lewis wasn't ever an atheist even when he said he was, why should I accept your claim to be an atheist? If Lewis had stayed an atheist, then you'd accept that? But it's impossible for an atheist to "convert" to theism? If someone does, then no self-respecting atheist would ever allow that such a person was ever, in fact, a genuine atheist….

I've heard similar arguements made about Faitheads who wake up and become atheists. I don't think such claims make either side seem reasonable. Lewis may have lost the simple proofs of his childhood but he didn't do a Bertrand Russell and turn his back of the whole sorry farrago of Christianity and walk away.

Nothing but "God" is infinite.

You mean the invisible dragon that is living in your garage and ever test we come up with to prove that is isn't there you claim isn't valid:

link

Remember we skeptics don't have to prove anything. Those who make the claims for the Invisible Pink Unicorn or whatever have to do the work. Saying that it comes from Bronze Age rat eaten parchment dictated by said IPU will not do.

A dragon, in A garage, isn't a NC or infinite concept.

If you are skeptical about existence in the first place requiring a necessary cause, I'd say that the burden of proof, that existence was never caused, is yours….

A moment to spare…thought I'd blather.

The use of "cause" seems to carry with it an intent – a piece of baggage I don't see as intrinsic, much less necessary.

Assuming a cause of existence seems akin to assuming a cause for a liquid taking the shape of the container it is poured into: while the shape of the glass, the physical properties of the liquid, and other such facets of the occurance certainly have an effect on its existence I don't think I'd go so far as to say any of them (or even all as a group) "caused" the shape of the liquid in the same way that, say, a person could be said to have caused a pile of blocks to be built.

Basically, stuff acts/reacts in a certain fashion and in so doing generates events. The fashion itself may very well be random since our perception of events/stuff is severly limited and can hardly be said to encompass all (or even most) possibilities, thus no claim can be made for any sort of "specialness" of any particular event -such as existence.

And so with evolution: it happens. No cause or "shove" required. It just is. To say that something must come prior to (to have caused) stuff in the first place is to assume a finite nature of time: such an assumption is, IMO, founded entirely on anthrocentricism and therefore highly suspect.

A dragon, in A garage, isn't a NC or infinite concept.

If you are skeptical about existence in the first place requiring a necessary cause, I'd say that the burden of proof, that existence was never caused, is yours….

Here we go again, proving that dialogue between the skeptic and the beleiver is not only fruitless be impossible.
I raise an analogy – an invisble dragon that every scientific proof is explained away The dragon is analogous to an invisible god. This is then dismissed decause a dragon is not "the Naturual Cause" – translation 'My God did it so I don't have to prove anything.'

Sorry if you want me to belieive in your invisible pink unicorn/pixie/god, you as the belieiver will have to do a lot better than that. Either that or you are trying to provoke me into some form of response so you can whine "Bill, Bill he's calling me names and making fun of my invisible friend" then look on smugly as I am bannished to the DawgHouse.

Assuming a cause of existence seems akin to assuming a cause for a liquid taking the shape of the container it is poured into:

Finite, physical phenomena, likened to infinite Existence, is about as non sequitur as I can imagine.

And so with evolution: it happens. No cause or "shove" required. It just is.

Evolution is observed to exist. The universe is observed to exist. Existence in the first place, if it always existed without being caused, IS the cause of everything that manifests in the universe.

An always existing Existence must be the greatest concept possible to imagine; if it isn't, then you're choosing to limit your imagination to something "comfortable" and finite – you are not approaching anywhere near an understanding of what is meant by TFW.

To say that something must come prior to (to have caused) stuff in the first place is to assume a finite nature of time: such an assumption is, IMO, founded entirely on anthrocentricism and therefore highly suspect.

In the largest possible concept of what Existence in the first place IS, there can be no "before and after" about any of it. That is intrinsic….

@138, existence is not invisible or arguable. It is the only infinite "thing". That's why all analogies to disprove a NC for Existence fail. Invisibility is not part of the NC, because obviously our own existence is not invisible.

And the LAST thing the DHDL will ever, EVER do, is go whining to Bill….

"…infinite existence…"

Okay, I was just talking about existence -not necessarily attaching any sort of time facet to it.

"Existence in the first place, if it always existed without being caused…"

I admit to having no clue whatsoever as to what you're talking about with this infinite stuff -what is this "existence" you speak of if not just stuff in some form or another?

@gweirda and @RAF

Doug's arguments are sometimes tough nuts to crack. And once they are cracked open I find that there is nothing inside. YMMV.

Okay, if Lewis wasn't ever an atheist even when he said he was, why should I accept your claim to be an atheist?

One, I have never claimed to be an atheist. Not that it is anyones business but I happen to belong to the Church of the Invisible Purple Space Pixies.

Two, Lewis was a liar. He manufactured his "atheism" to make his being "reborn" more of an "event", that he could write about later. Anyone who states he was, "very angry with God for not existing", is a -poor atheist. Read his "Surprised by Joy" for more self-contradictory myth building.

Three, he is a terrible writer.

Ralph

I admit to having no clue whatsoever as to what you're talking about with this infinite stuff -what is this "existence" you speak of if not just stuff in some form or another?

Come now, your brain, being that of a homo sapien, comprehends the concept of infinity. That which never ends, had no beginning and has no physical limitations (no measurable mass or extent). I am no philospher or scientist and I can write that out clearly enough. It is integral with our thinking. That's what makes "To infinity, and beYOND!" so funny: it's the ultimate nonsensical statement.

Could a finite universe that always existed come up with beings (us) that have finite brains which imagine infinite concepts?

"Stuff in some form or another" is just stuff manifesting from the Existence that is the NC. And yes, it has no finite extent. This universe is not all there is to existence: your brain can take ONE small step beyond this universe and comprehend how it could be an immeasurably insignificant "particle" in the infinitely expanding whole array of "stuff" that is Existence manifesting empirically….

@Ralph, you are a heretic (that can be taken as a compliment, if you choose). Anyone who would call C. S. Lewis a liar and terrible writer has issues with the man, not his honesty or writing style.

If Lewis had concentrated on historical fiction or sci-fi and left out the Christology/allegory I bet you'd find his writing style more than adequate.

The only way that Lewis could have been a "liar" is if he had convinced himself of his own erstwhile atheism and subsequent conversion. I see no evidence at all to support an assertion that he deliberately deceived everyone when he waxed autobiographically into metaphysics….

@Ralph, you are a heretic ……

No. The Church of the Invisible Purple Space Pixies have strict laws against apostasy.

Anyone who would call C. S. Lewis a liar …… has issues with the man, not his honesty…..

Hilarious!

If Lewis had concentrated on historical fiction or sci-fi and left out the Christology/allegory I bet you'd find his writing style more than adequate.

No. He's no Tolkien, nor is he a Pullman.

The only way that Lewis could have been a "liar" is if he had convinced himself of his own erstwhile atheism and subsequent conversion.

No, that is the definition of "deluded". He deluded others for effect. That's lying.

Ralph

You've read him and concluded that he was a liar. I've never heard anyone accuse C. S. Lewis of being less than candid about himself until now. Is this an atheist thing? (because specious pink space pixies is no sound basis for a "religion", i.e. you've only reinforced my assertion that you are an atheist….)

Come now, your brain, being that of a homo sapien, comprehends the concept of infinity.

Actually you are totally wrong. The Universe is immensely large, made from 10 to the power of 81 quarks. Our brains cannot conceive of that. Yet it is still infinitely small with respect to the concept of "infinity".

"Stuff in some form or another" is just stuff manifesting from the Existence that is the NC. And yes, it has no finite extent.

Deepak Chopra? Is that you?

This universe is not all there is to existence: …..

You have no way of knowing that. How could you?

Ralph

You've read him and concluded that he was a liar.

In that instance, yes.

I've never heard anyone accuse C. S. Lewis of being less than candid about himself until now. Is this an atheist thing?

Well it IS a known fact that only atheists lie, certainly not the religious.

I think Lewis made up his youthful "atheism" to lord it over the other British contemporary intellectuals and writers such as Kingsly Amis, Cyril Connolly, CDH Cole, Ivy Compton-Burnett and George Orwell. Then he could say how he transcended their empty philosophies when he became "born again". He was also ultimately a disappointment to Tolkien when he didn't become RC.

…..(because specious pink space pixies is no sound basis for a "religion",…..

Some jokes just write themselves.

Ralph

existence is not invisible or arguable. It is the only infinite "thing". That's why all analogies to disprove a NC for Existence fail. Invisibility is not part of the NC, because obviously our own existence is not invisible.

So lets get this streight. We have a NC (an acronym that "Doom" has not defined, but which I assume is a 'Fist Cause' in a way the Doug spent pages arguing about, and which presumably is some form of 'god') because we have existance. I can touch matter etc so that matter proves existance and existance proves 'god'. Now that seems to contain so many logical errors I do not know where to begin. Circular reasoning seems to be a good place to start. A natural cause for existence is, of cource, not going to satisfy "Doom" so we are back to 'goddidit' so the scientists just have to shut up and look on in wonder.

What's happened to Doug? I miss his contributions. Hi Doug if you're reading.

Tolkien was hard to please he absolutely detested one of my favour authors E.R. Eddison.

Lewis was not as good a worksmith as Tolkien and reading his books is like being hit up the side of the head with a cricket bat for subtly of message.

Actually you are totally wrong. The Universe is immensely large, made from 10 to the power of 81 quarks. Our brains cannot conceive of that.

"Conceive" means to understand. It doesn't infer a comprehensive, detailed knowledge.

Yet it is still infinitely small with respect to the concept of "infinity".

I believe I said that in so many words already. I get the concept, as do you: which is an infinite concept (the only one, in fact), yet conceived inside a finite brain. Interesting, huh?

This universe is not all there is to existence: …..

You have no way of knowing that. How could you?

Because my finite brain moves far beyond what science hypothesizes for a size to the universe. If the universe as an actual physical quantity that we can hypothetically measure is all there is to existence, then it is finite, yet producing life (us), which can conceive of infinity. That is an ex nihilo again. The very fact that our imaginations transcend our finite brains is evidence for infinite Existence.

@138: What's happened to Doug? I miss his contributions. Hi Doug if you're reading.

Ralph recognized me right off :) I haven't gone anywhere, just "had my real self surgically removed".

A natural cause for existence is, of cource, not going to satisfy [Doug]…

Of course it will. I don't believe in supernatural stuff. Everything about Existence is natural. It doesn't follow, however, that our current (solely) empirical scientific method will detect all that there is to Existence….

Duh, sorry Doug I had assumed you were actually TJ come back and trying to wind us up.