MonDie

Don't forget the consequences of overpopulation. Humans reproduce less and spend more time nurturing their offspring. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/71586-could-excess-prolificityoffspring-be-maladaptive-nurturance-distribution/ Why must he be repelled by it? Can't he just lack any sort of interest in it? I think this argument assumes that a male would like homosexual relations if he were to try them. Now the argument is changing. I can imagine how a man would be more likely to reproduce if he were disinclined toward homosexual interactions, for he might actually like it if he tried it, and his decision to continue the behavior might lower his fitness. However, I can't imagine a biological explanation for oppressing the gays. First, his own genes aren't at stake. Second, the presence of nonreproductive individuals doesn't threaten society. It might even prevent overpopulation.

It means you've been primed to process visual information erotically, probably from being exposed to some sort of erotica within the last couple days.

It's really cheesey of me to post this, but I think this song has a good message. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8zCFWvFMXU

ACG52, forgive me if I failed in my attempt at being nice. I ran out of coffee beans. You're right, I was speaking of different hypotheses with identical predictions. Another thought occurred to me. If different hypothesis statements lead to identical predictions, maybe their untestable portions consist of meaningless language, i.e. maybe science is the sole source of functional language, of words that can mean the same thing to different people. Alternatively, there really is no difference, it's just different words for the same thing. Of course, mathematics is a language superior to Enlgish; that's what the equals sign is for, no dictionaries needed. You're going beyond me. I mostly take science courses because the necessary mathematics courses fill up so quickly. Ptolemy's model was not identical to Kepler's. Kepler's model is accepted because its predictions are more accurate than those of the Ptolemaic Earth-centered model. Newton came later. (Johannes Kepler 1571-1630; Isaac Newton 1642-1727).

Semantics. Agreed. If you read my status, thanks. It worked. This would certainly be true if you equate the hypothesis's truth with its successful application. But without philosophical tools like Occam's razor, might we find that there are contradicting hypotheses that are all equally useful? As someone who wants more than utility, I would be on the lookout for benign errors (e.g. metaphysical assumptions).

But doesn't that assume (a) no errors in logic and (b) the validity of other theories that connect the hypothesis and prediction? As an example of B, suppose my hypothesis is that a star has neon in its outermost shell, but I have a pseudoscientific belief that neon's emission spectrum is actually helium's emission spectrum. If the star contains helium, my prediction may be fulfilled, but only because I connected hypothesis and prediction with a false belief.

To give a better answer than Dawkins: The only apparent barrier is between hypothesis and prediction. Someone could get true predictions from a false hypothesis or vice verca. However, the connector between hypothesis and prediction is logic, and arguably, one needs no faith in logic because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis. Ideally, the hypothesis and prediction are simply different ways of stating the same idea, though this won't always be true since the prediction might rely on the validity of other hypotheses/theories as well. If someone gets true predictions from a false hypothesis, it's because they've made errors in logic. Of course, they might argue that their logic is right and ours is wrong, but this still isn't a matter of faith because logic operates on a 'by definition' basis. At least that is where my own reasoning took me. Of course. Science doesn't have the answer ≠ Religion does

You might be right to say that we have no evidence of an infinite universe. But there is some evidence for multiple universes, even if inflation isn't necessarily eternal. Note: I begin using the term "god-tuned" because fine-tuning isn't always explained theologically, as with the anthropic approach. The god-tuned concept or the designer concept lacks evidence, whereas the multiverse theory has some evidence. Alright, maybe our universe isn't fine-tuned. To the gnostic readers: I say there is no evidence for a designer because I think of evidence as fulfilled predictions. The designer concept has no fulfilled predictions, it just rests on arguments for its necessity (not just its necessity for fine-tuning, but also for biological adaptions and even the genesis of life). The problem with arguments for necessity is that they're difficult to uphold. To uphold one, you have to show that there is no possible alternative. Since the "necessary" hypothesis lacks evidence, the alternatives don't need evidence either. An alternative could be just about any whacky explanation my creative mind can crap out. Note: The term "argument for necessity" is something I just made up. It's not formal. To quote photon propeller once again.

especially the poop of the sea cucumber... Not necessarily. If existence is infinite, there may be infinitely many life-forms. This would render the fine-tuned argument irrelevant. God didn't give a damn (pun intended) how fine-tuned it was because it was infinite. Yet that does not solve the so called "problem of evil." I'm not sure that argument works. If we assume there are multiple universes, we might explain the hospitability of our own universe in two ways. (1) Universes tend to be hospitable. (2) Even if inhospitable universes dominate, we necessarily exist in a hospitable one. However, if we assume there is only one universe, neither of these apply. We have to accept that: (1) The only universe is a hospitable universe. (2) If this universe were inhospitable, there would be nothing to witness at all. Thus we would be left with the question, "Why is the only universe a hospitable universe?" Of course, we would have no reason to favor the Christian's answer over something like the simulation hypothesis, but we would still need an answer if hospitability were something very, very improbable. But, in the end, the physicists have the best answer. The battle need not be won twice.

Here's the Scientific American viewpoint. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe It gets to the point in paragraphs 5-6. I wish I had some knowledge of physics, but I only know the few equations I learned from my chemistry textbook. Oh yeah, I love excrement. I love its smell and its taste.

Here, photon propeller's god. - - - - - - Here, photon propeller appears to argue that our universe must have been made by a knowing being. Omniscience is an attribute often ascribed to gods. I cannot tell if PP is making the same argument, but the argument reminds me of another common arguments, the argument that the values determined at the big bang, the values necessary for life, must have been decided by a knowing being that knew what properties were needed for life. I would love to argue against this, but these arguments have a tendency to really suck me in and waste a lot of my time.

I guess, but why did they name the thread "The concept of a god" if the actual topic was "Is (dis)belief in God important?" You're probably right. The way the discussion flowed made it look like he was mistaking you for PP.

You were responding to Popcorn Sutton, not Photon Propeller. I know the existence question wasn't aimed at me, but I thought I would point out that "existence" must be defined before someone can say a non-participatory thing is nonetheless existent. Photon Propeller argues that his god put in place the laws of the universe, including the causal relationships. This sets his god apart from our ordered world, placing it somewhere beyond. This results in a paradox. PP is describing creation as an act of God even though his god isn't part of the action (i.e. causality, time, etc.)

They would have to define "existence" first. As I mentioned elsewhere, we don't directly percieve that things exist, but we do directly percieve that our world has order. It is our explanations for this order, our theories, that introduce the idea of things "existing." But what does "existence" even mean? If "existence" is inextricably intertwined with participation in the order of the world, then being non-participatory is the same as being non-existent.

I was joking. But seriously, I wouldn't blame NASA for wanting to blot out this symbol of racism and hatred. It's a giant ku klux klan cross.

Shenanigans! You moved my post! NASA has since put up a new image of the sun, and it isn't damaged in any way. Perhaps the NASA people saw this thread, and therein realized that their attempts to secularize the sun would not go unnoticed.

"The nature of reality" may have been a poor choice of words, but my intent was to point out a distinction. There is a difference between the method being useful and its theories being accurate representations. Put another way, there is a difference between knowing how to manipulate the world and knowing what the world is or does. I admit that there were faulty assumptions underlying the way I posed the question.

EDIT: Now they have a newer image up that's not pixelated. Maybe there was a data transmission error. Hey, look at that, a black pixel cross in the lower left corner of the image.

Don't be silly. http://sohodata.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/data_query_search_url?Session=web&Resolution=2&Display=Images&NumImg=30&Types=instrument=EIT:wavelength=304

Suicide is still ethically problematic. Admittedly, it's not a gun-specific problem, so a guns ban would only be one of many possible approaches to the suidice problem. However, suicide prevention would still be a positive result of a guns ban, like the chocolate syrup upon the sundae.

I think PP is trying to show that Einstein's god isn't very different from what most theists believe in. I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't even agree that Einstein was theistic. I don't know exactly what Einstein's god is, but it seems to be one that requires less faith (if any). I have noticed that some people's gods require more faith than others. For example, some gods merely set up the world like a self-sustaining machine, whereas other gods set up the world and actively interfere with it on the behalf of those they like. The former makes fewer assumptions and requires less faith. This brings up another issue, namely the malleability of the word itself. As one makes their god more realistic, they tend to make it less god-like. More Einstein Quotes: He seems to be quite the chameleon. For a person who used the word "God" in reference to something, he implied atheism quite a bit. I can't make heads or tails of it. If you read the WikiQuote article section "Science and Religion (1941), he explains what is meant by "religion" and how it relates to science. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Science_and_Religion_.281941.29 Hopefully, I can sum it up without doing too much damage. He thought that science provides truth and religion provides values, and that scientists should hold values even though their "superpersonal" character cannot be justified rationally.

I would be less hesitant to believe in that. So "God" refers to a feeling, or that which is being felt, but not necessarily anything that exists independent of us. In that case, I would say the mistake of virtually all religion is to associate this feeling with nonreferring words and empty concepts.

When you say science cannot answer it, you are suggesting a limitation in the scientific method. Do scientists know definitely that this limitation is insuperable, or are you extrapolating from the general lack of ideas?

Maybe the original was a bit harsh.

That's nothing. According to my calculations, Russell's teapot will eclipse the sun when anthropologists discover Noah's ark.