Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.0.140	10-Apr-06/2:12 PM
To clarify--I just meant, originally, that I didn't see the Occam article as an attack, per se, on anyone's faith. I do think it effectively presents the concept of God as "nonessential" to our understanding of reality/evolution/etc.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/2:04 PM
Well I'm flattered. And I've always tried to think scientifically when it comes to things that science can explain but as you already know I think that science has it's limits. Eventually you're just left with guessing or settling with ignoring what you don't know altogether. In your mind I'm guessing science explains everything and so in a way it IS God.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.0.140	10-Apr-06/2:02 PM
Actually, I took it to mean the opposite--the article points out (rightly, I think) that Occam's Razor is a good argument *against* the existence of God because, when boiled down to the essentials, God is a outlier, not an essential. God "introduces a truly new, unrelated element to the explanatory system. Occam's Razor can shave away the God concept without affecting any of the basic concepts of science. If we try to cut away evolution theory, we have to shave away an enormous amount of knowledge about the world, as evolution theory is just a name for the patterns basic processes produce." Occam's Razor is just a tool, a way of thinking, though. It doesn't necessarily prove or disprove anything. It does help to provide clarity in thinking when dealing with complex systems and theories though. So much for working today. Yikes.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/1:52 PM
Your take is basically my take on Ockham. I think he's just saying let's use what we know and not what we think we know in science. I have no beaf with that. It's using the word simple to describe concise or verifiable things that I don't like about his theory. I mean what's simpler than saying God did it? Zodiac is the one trying to use it as proof that God doesn't exist.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.9.3	10-Apr-06/1:42 PM
It was a gift for you, AlChemy, because you were asking about logical ways of dealing with God a couple months ago. I put it on Dovina's poem because that's where I usually put things.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.9.3	10-Apr-06/1:40 PM
You don't need to comprehend how scientifically he did it. I can comprehend a God that can make something out of nothing. I can. It's easy. God thinks, let there be light, and there's light. If he thought, let there be a cupcake, there'd be a cupcake. Poof, like on TV. If there's God, he doesn't have to do things scientifically. Another difference between us is that you SIMPLY DEFINE GOD AS INCOMPREHENSIBLE, and then use that definition to show there is a God who's incomprehensible. Out of all the possible Gods, there are certainly more than a few who are totally comprehensible. The evidence that God is incomprehensible simply isn't there. If I were an eternal being, say, I might decided to create some matter and form it in shapes and put people on them and test them for "good" or "evil" and reward the good ones. Hell, I practically DO -- I have an ant farm. Would I be incomprehensible? No. By Dovina's standard, I wouldn't even be incomprehensible to the ants.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.0.140	10-Apr-06/1:26 PM
Well, I don't think that's what I'm doing. And I don't have the same interpretation of the Wikipedia article re: Occam's Razor as you do; it does, at the end, state explicitly: >>The principle is only a guide to the best theory based on current knowledge, not to the "truth". It is argued that Ockham was an intellectual forefather of the scientific method . . . however, [he can] be seen as an apologist for Divine Omnipotence, since he was concerned with demonstrating that creation is contingent and the Creator is free to change the rules at will. Thus, if God is free to make an infinity of worlds with completely different rules from those which prevail in our world, then we are free to imagine such worlds and their logical and practical consequences.<< I agree that it's unlikely that one can "disprove" God, and I wouldn't really want to try (seems kind of pointless), but I also don't think there's any verifiable proof of God to BE disproved, not from a scientific standpoint. I have no problem with faith or individual beliefs. (Whatever gets you through the night/it's all right/it's all right.) I do have a problem when people try to use pseudo-science to justify belief in a god--especially systematic attempts, such as those of certain school boards, to put belief in God on an equal scientific footing as theories that meet the accepted rigors of the scientific process. Faith is not science. God is not a theory in the accepted meaning of that term. Outside of that, I don't much care what people believe, as long as it's not a basis for harming others. Me, why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/12:37 PM
That's what I'm saying. It's just stupid to try to disprove God. Science can only go back so far and then it's left with nothing but conjecture to work with. At that point, your guess is as good as mine. To ridicule someone for believing it all started from something beyond our understanding at this point is to say your guess is better than their's, which is the epitome of arrogance.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/12:25 PM
Sure, this whole Occam thing wasn't an attack on Dovina's beliefs, right? Hurt begets hurt, sir. Here's someone who said what I'm saying better: http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm A true atheist would not go around saying God doesn't exists, he'd only go as far to say that there is no proof that he does. That means it's our job to convince you he does exist not your job to convince us he doesn't. So stop being such a overzealous atheist.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.0.140	10-Apr-06/12:19 PM
Tell you what--show me ANY objective, observational evidence of your magically appearing apple, any at all (without relying on trickery or sleight of hand), and I'll consider this something more than a flip response. The Big Bang theory, as I understand it, doesn't posit that the universe appeared from nothing. It says that it emerged from a "dense, hot state"--a primordial atom, if you like. The beauty of it--and what makes it a theory as we define that term--is that it does rest on observational evidence. Take this recent, exciting discovery: http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/16/cosmic.inflation.ap/ Of course, you can ask what came before that primordial atom and speculate that some grand designer put it into place. But that's not science. It's not a scientific theory. That's faith. That's all I'm saying.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/12:04 PM
What you can't comprehend is how scientifically he did it. Since you're nitpicking my choice of words and not even considering what I'm trying to say I'll try using a different word. Replace comprehension with logical human understanding. You can't comprehend my God. You can only comprehend the meaning of God you've decided on in your head. That is you've decided God is nothing but an imaginary person. That is the only thing you've comprehended. You're using the word God as a whatchamacallit, that's not comprehension.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ALChemy 24.74.100.11	10-Apr-06/11:29 AM
Show me how this big bang appears from absolutley nothing and I'll show you the apple trick.
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/10:21 AM
Well, sure--that's just peachy in my book too. Assuming the apple appeared in Rio and not, say, Anchorage. And, if Rio, still not a theory until it meets certain rigorous criteria, any more than "intelligent design" is a real scientific theory. (But I think I'm preaching to the choir here.) Do you know of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti monster? Enlivens all discussion of intelligent design. ;) http://www.venganza.org/
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	zodiac 209.193.9.3	10-Apr-06/8:16 AM
ADDENDUM: A perfectly valid scientific hypothesis might be "An apple can appear from nowhere only under the conditions that were present in Rio de Janiero on Monday April 10, 2006." That would be fine, in my book.
Re: a comment on The copper man and Labrador by Caducus	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/8:02 AM
Hee--I can't vote this a zero, Caducus. But I *have* been trying to vote "Beard My Negro Jesus" to the top (which hasn't been working either). Sorry. ;)
Re: a comment on The Battle of Fort Bragg by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/7:55 AM
Pardon me for butting in (oh, fuck it--it's a public board), but the two aren't remotely the same. The Big Bang isn't a concept that relies entirely on faith, you know. If you can apply our agreed-upon scientific method to the phenomenon of an apple appearing from nowhere with verifiable results, I wouldn't laugh (well, maybe with delight) and neither would the scientific community. That would take (following description borrowed from http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html): >>1. Observation and description of the phenomenon. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. *It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.* (my emphasis) There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.<< The Big Bang is a theory supported by the application of the scientific method. As time goes on, we continue to learn things that support that theory. To compare the Big Bang to some unverifiable magical happening (such as that out-of-nowhere apple) ignores the definition of a "theory."
Re: Random Design by thepinkbunnyofdoom	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/7:47 AM
Curtains and seas and wolves, oh my! Ambitious, but comes across a bit pedantic and pseudo-profound (that sounds meaner than I mean it--sorry bunny). I think that with more cohesive imagery and a clearer, more defined focus, this would improve. Still, kudos for takin on the big stuff. You come closest, I think, in the last three stanzas--much to grab onto and identify with.
Re: Semaphores from the Chaos by cyan9	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/7:44 AM
I generally like your imagery, cyan, but I always think there's lots you can cut or condense (e.g., "Flash shots of landscapes made from acsii characters"--why not just "Flash shots of ascii landscapes"? "Made from" -- just bleh words, dilutes the image.) Why the shift in tenses (past perfect to simple past) from the first stanza to the rest and back again in the last? Just makes it seem confused. "Alured" is not a word. Still, not bad.
Re: Maybe I Wasn’t Born on a Fool’s Day by Dovina	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/7:38 AM
Cute, D. Every mother's nightmare. ;)
Re: a comment on Or Outward by MacFrantic	ecargo 167.219.88.140	10-Apr-06/7:34 AM
Yes, they are. I frown on "intentional grammar flaws" even more than the other kind. ;) If you capped Furies, I'd've known what you meant without the explanation. Capping them wouldn't have thrown anything off, really. I thought you meant "fury's spell," which would have worked, by the way. Maybe even better. That aside, I don't get much sense from this. Now, if something is interesting enough, I don't always care if I get it (I like Dental Panic's stuff a great deal, for example, and half the time I'm damned if I know what he or she is talking about), but I don't think you quite hit the mark here.