Saturday, December 10, 2016

[AvC] Re: Fine-tuning of the universe — so that life can exist.



On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 3:14:07 PM UTC-5, Timbo wrote:


On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 3:48:24 PM UTC-5, Tex wrote:
You will find the origin of this quote at http://quotingeinstein.blogspot.com/2013/06/einstein-and-michele-besso.html. Einstein wrote the sentence in a letter of condolence to the family of his friend Michele Besso. 

Upon Besso's death in 1955, Einstein wrote a letter of condolence to the Besso family—less than a month before his own death—which contained the following quote "Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For those of us who believe in physics, the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion."

It is likely that Einstein said this because relativity suggests a four-dimensional space-time in which time is treated almost like a spatial dimension. Then general relativity implied that the universe lies in a curved albeit bumpy space-time in which it is impossible to synchronize clocks everywhere. This perhaps suggested to Einstein that time with its past, present, and future was merely an illusion in a complex space-time block in which nothing really changes. Our consciousness merely sees itself as moving moment by moment through that unchanging space-time block. Such a picture would be quite consistent with Einstein's determinism.

However, Einstein never expanded on this statement. It is nothing but a statement of condolences for the Besso family. Einstein could do nothing later with the intuition that he expressed in the letter. He must have been defeated by the undeniable and fundamental Arrow of Time pointing from the past to the future. The Arrow of Time is the direction in which time seems to flow. This remains a persistent problem in physics. There are various physical phenomena that have a kind of one-way character developing towards the future rather than towards the past, but so far as I am aware there is no deep explanation for the "persistent illusion" of the flow of time. Perhaps it is not an illusion at all.

In any case, the universe cannot be a brain!

Tex

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 1:52:37 PM UTC-6, Amos wrote:


On Sunday, 27 November 2016 19:12:36 UTC, Tex wrote:
On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 5:28:54 AM UTC-6, Amos wrote:


 The universe is a giant brain and each and every photon, electron, atom, molecule, planet, star, or galaxy, is simply a reflection of it's workings and every living cell and living organism, a reflection of it's thoughts and imaginations.

Amos, that is a lovely poetic image, but as fact it doesn't work. The only way that parts of the universe can communicate with each other is via signals that travel no faster than the speed of light. Since the radius of the known universe is about 13.6 billion (thousand million) light-years, things on one edge of the known universe must be at least 27.2 billion light years from things on the opposite edge of the known universe. Given the expansion of the universe, those things must be much, much farther apart now than the 27.2 billion years that separated them at a time near the beginning. Since the universe is only 13.6 billion years old, there has simply been insufficient time for any signal to travel from one edge of the known universe to the opposite edge.

So the speed of light limitation on signaling means that as a brain the universe would be very, very slow in thinking or reacting. And since the Hubble Expansion of the universe provides an absolute maximum to the distance over which communication is possible, there will be parts of this brain that can never communicate with the parts of the universe near us.

The universe makes a rather poorly designed brain. But your metaphor is quite beautiful. Too bad that it cannot be taken seriously.

best regards,
Tex  

The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. Albert Einstein


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZQxMowBsw

The universe has more in common with earth quakes than the human brain. Ignorant man once believed gods had something to do with earth quakes. It is simply that ignorance in general, makes it easier to keep believing in the super natural. For me, the universe seems very simple like titanic plates than the complex human mind.

Sorry, that should have read tectonic plates. I start falling asleep when responding to the subject of intelligent universe.  

"The wind blew from God's lips and then there was light"  Why do they keep trying to make such mythology a reality? Get over it. Throw the stupid book in the trash.












 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: This is incontrovertible proof that God is evil. God does not live by his own golden rule.



On Dec 10, 2016, at 10:36 AM, 'yarrido@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:



On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 3:06:01 PM UTC-5, Justafoolagain wrote:
So you think the golden rule that Jesus gave is immoral to Jesus.

    Jesus the man or Jesus the God? It gets a little complicated when we speak of the incarnate Jesus.

 

Thanks for showing disrespect for what Jesus taught.

   You really should be more careful about jumping to conclusions. Assuming that Christians have a simpleton idea of how this works in reality is a very grave mistake. We've had some two thousand years to parse through what God spoke to the world.

And nobody knows what it means, including you. 

 

Shame on you.

Regards
DL

On Friday, December 9, 2016 at 2:25:25 PM UTC-5, yarrido wrote:
Imperfect human beings are not worthy of worship... That is why God should not follow the Golden rule. In fact,  if he did,  he would be immoral.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: This is incontrovertible proof that God is not good as man is good. God does not live by his own golden rule.

> On Dec 10, 2016, at 10:49 AM, Alan Wostenberg <awosty@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yar: Imperfect human beings are not worthy of worship... That is why God should not follow the Golden rule. In fact, if he did, he would be immoral.
>
> DL: So you think the golden rule that Jesus gave is immoral to Jesus.
>
> Aw: as God, who sustains all things in being every moment they exist, Jesus no more has a moral obligation to us than a carpenter has obligstions the table he makes. We make a big mistake at the outset if we think God is good as man is good -- a bigger mistake than thinking a good carpenter resembles a good table.
>
>
>
> Rupert: That's an incredibly morally abhorrent and disgusting point of view.
>
> Aw: I take it you think the goodness of God consists of moral goodness?
>
> Lois: Alan, nobody knows anything about the "moral goodness" of God Humans assume "goodness" on a human scale. We can't do otherwise without useless fantasy. If God created us, he created us without the ability to step outside our human limitations, and any such God should know what he was doing. If he didn't want us to judge him through the human limitations that he imbued us with he would have created us with a more God-like understanding. You are suggesting the impossible--that humans become less human and more godlike in their assessment of God--in contradiction to the human characteristics he created--and must have intended to create.
>
> Alan: True, left to our natural powers we understand God as human, not as Inhuman intellect. We also understand a landscape, a rainbow, or a black hole, according to our human intellect, not as an alien, or angelic, intellect. But the intellect is the facilit if otherness -- it allows us to get out of ourselves, to know things, not thoughts!
>
> Do you, like Rupert and DL, understand the goodness of God as moral goodness? This is a big mistake.
>
> Knowing anthropomorphism is a big mistake, we can do better. Failure is a form of idolatry.
>
> For tempting as it is, there is nothing in our human knowing powers coercing us to think God is good as a man is good, or that the goodness of God consists in moral goodness. The bible doesn't push that idea. That God is good - yes! That God is good as people are good? No to much.
>
> What about this adjective "good"?
>
> If a good carpenter is nothing like a good table, or a good knife nothing like a good car, why should the goodness of God be anything like the goodness of people?
>
> Are we simply equivocating when we apply this term good to knives, cars, tables, carpenters, people, God?

What's your definition of "good" as applied to god? As applied to anything?
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Mary Wollstonecraft



On Dec 10, 2016, at 6:48 PM, Timbo <thcustom@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 8:42:05 PM UTC-5, LL wrote:

In the wake of the November 8 electoral disaster, Trump's naming Amway billionaire Betsy DeVos as  secretary of education, Trump's announced intention to appoint more Scalias to the Supreme Court, and Ohio Republican legislators' recent passage of a bill to outlaw nearly all abortions, I reread Mary Wollstonecraft's wonderful 1792 201 page book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (available from your library or the cheap 1996 Dover Publications unabridged edition).

 

Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was a friend of Tom Paine and the mother of Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein. Wollstonecraft was one of the principal founders of the women's rights movement. Her book is as up to date as anything published today. Her book does not mention abortion rights as abortion was legal in Britain and America during her lifetime, though, like any medical procedure at that time,  dangerous.

 

In view of the current threats to public education from DeVos, Trump, and all its other enemies, Wollstonecraft, born exactly 200 years before DeVos, stands out as one of the earliest and strongest advocates of public schools. She opposed private schools and advocated strongly for tax supported public schools "in which boys and girls might be educated together." These would be responsible to local school boards. Public schools would serve boys and girls, rich and poor together, and "to prevent any of the distinctions of vanity they should be dressed alike and all obliged to submit to the same discipline." She advocated a broad rich curriculum and ample recesses for exercise on "a large piece of ground."

 

Trump, DeVos, the promoters of vouchers and other gimmicks to divert public funds to special interest private schools, the "reformists" and privatizers, and others hostile to public schools and the majority of Americans who like and send their kids to them should learn something from this young Englishwoman who was born before the American Revolution.


If Wollstonecraft was a friend of Thomas Paine she likely learned from the most intelligent human of that time on how to create the most successful society. Trump seems to want to surround himself with radical nuts of every white supreme capitalist. This has not been done since Jackson. There is too many Republicans in Congress that will oppose Jacksonian capitalism. Trumps a lame duck. He will likely stay up all night tweeting opposition to Congress who won't pass any bills. The biggest joke in American history! Probably should stock up on Face Book. Twitter accounts will diminish to nothing by the end of 2017.

I'm hoping you're right, but I'm still worried. Anything is possible. 

 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Mary Wollstonecraft



On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 8:42:05 PM UTC-5, LL wrote:

In the wake of the November 8 electoral disaster, Trump's naming Amway billionaire Betsy DeVos as  secretary of education, Trump's announced intention to appoint more Scalias to the Supreme Court, and Ohio Republican legislators' recent passage of a bill to outlaw nearly all abortions, I reread Mary Wollstonecraft's wonderful 1792 201 page book, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (available from your library or the cheap 1996 Dover Publications unabridged edition).

 

Wollstonecraft (1759-1797) was a friend of Tom Paine and the mother of Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein. Wollstonecraft was one of the principal founders of the women's rights movement. Her book is as up to date as anything published today. Her book does not mention abortion rights as abortion was legal in Britain and America during her lifetime, though, like any medical procedure at that time,  dangerous.

 

In view of the current threats to public education from DeVos, Trump, and all its other enemies, Wollstonecraft, born exactly 200 years before DeVos, stands out as one of the earliest and strongest advocates of public schools. She opposed private schools and advocated strongly for tax supported public schools "in which boys and girls might be educated together." These would be responsible to local school boards. Public schools would serve boys and girls, rich and poor together, and "to prevent any of the distinctions of vanity they should be dressed alike and all obliged to submit to the same discipline." She advocated a broad rich curriculum and ample recesses for exercise on "a large piece of ground."

 

Trump, DeVos, the promoters of vouchers and other gimmicks to divert public funds to special interest private schools, the "reformists" and privatizers, and others hostile to public schools and the majority of Americans who like and send their kids to them should learn something from this young Englishwoman who was born before the American Revolution.


If Wollstonecraft was a friend of Thomas Paine she likely learned from the most intelligent human of that time on how to create the most successful society. Trump seems to want to surround himself with radical nuts of every white supreme capitalist. This has not been done since Jackson. There is too many Republicans in Congress that will oppose Jacksonian capitalism. Trumps a lame duck. He will likely stay up all night tweeting opposition to Congress who won't pass any bills. The biggest joke in American history! Probably should stock up on Face Book. Twitter accounts will diminish to nothing by the end of 2017.

 

Edd Doerr

Americans for Religious Liberty 

Airlinc.org


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: This is incontrovertible proof that God is not good as man is good. God does not live by his own golden rule.



On Dec 10, 2016, at 11:55 AM, Timbo <thcustom@sbcglobal.net> wrote:



On Saturday, December 10, 2016 at 1:51:19 PM UTC-5, Alan Wostenberg wrote:


 Yar: Imperfect human beings are not worthy of worship... That is why God should not follow the Golden rule. In fact,  if he did,  he would be immoral.  

DL: So you think the golden rule that Jesus gave is immoral to Jesus.  

Aw: as God, who sustains all things in being every moment they exist, Jesus no more has a moral obligation to us than a carpenter has obligstions the table he makes. We make a big mistake at the outset if we think God is good as man is good -- a bigger mistake than thinking a good carpenter resembles a good table.  

Rupert: That's an incredibly morally abhorrent and disgusting point of view.  

Aw: I take it you think the goodness of God consists of moral goodness?  

Lous: Alan, nobody knows anything about the "moral goodness" of God Humans assume "goodness" on a human scale. We can't do otherwise without useless fantasy. If God created us, he created us without the ability to step outside our human limitations, and any such God should know what he was doing. If he didn't want us to judge him through the human limitations that he imbued us with he would have created us with a more God-like understanding. You are suggesting the impossible--that humans become less human and more godlike  in their assessment of God--in contradiction to the human characteristics he created--and must have intended to create.

Alan:  True, left to our natural powers we understand God as human, not as Inhuman intellect.  We also understand a landscape, a rainbow, or a black hole, according to our human intellect, not as an alien, or angelic, intellect. But the intellect is the facility of otherness -- it allows us to get out of ourselves, to know things, not thoughts!

Do you, like Rupert and DL, understand the goodness of God as moral goodness?  This is a big mistake.  

Knowing anthropomorphism is a big mistake, we can do better.  Failure is a form of idolatry.

For tempting as it is, there is nothing in our human knowing powers coercing us to think God is good as a man is good, or that the goodness of God consists in moral goodness. The bible doesn't push that idea. That God is good - yes! That God is good as people are good? No to much.

 What about this adjective "good"?

If a good carpenter is nothing like a good table, or a good knife nothing like a good car, why should the goodness of God be anything like the goodness of people?  

Are we simply equivocating when we apply this term good to knives, cars, tables, carpenters, people, God?


Within meaningful context, God and man are both operatives or operating systems. Knives and tables are not operating systems. The question you might ask: "Is the computer evil?" or "is Twitter evil"  The answer is no, of coarse not. Only man and his concepts of evil can claim things evil or not. Of coarse something that man cannot prove exists can be whatever is convenient  that he needs to support his agenda throughout time. 

Jabberwocky. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [AvC] Re: Person of the Year



On Dec 10, 2016, at 12:13 PM, 'yarrido@aol.com' via Atheism vs Christianity <atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Look, I think this line of argument is nonsense unless you are willing to put it right across the board for all. Hillary was the runner-up to the prize of the person of the year.

There is no "runner up". There were several people who were nominated that made the final cut. I am not sure Hillary was one of them. In ay case neither she nor any of the others was a "runner up." They were simply voted against by the editors of Time. 

The rest of your diatribe is even less rational. It makes your presumed thinking processes look abysmal. 

--------------


So, does that mean that she is also in line for being anything like the Fortunate Wolf? I don't think so and I don't even like Hillary. This is just a mindless way to argue. We really have to reign in our emotions and adopt a more cerebral point of view. I think that I have more to worry about from Donald, as a conservative, than you do as a progressive. The fact of the matter is that he is more likely to be influenced into a liberal mindset and away from conservative views. I say that on the basis of his chummy attitude toward Obama. It is very likely that during the first visit to the white house with Obama, Donald got an earful of lies from him that he couldn't see through and bought them wholesale as the truth. The only point he has not convinced him of yet is the integrity of the FBI and CIA...though I think that those two agencies are likely to be more reliable than the justice department...maybe. There are certain organizations that should be booted out of the white house and never let into it again. In fact, they should be probably booted out of the country, but I doubt that Donald has enough education in this area to actually know that this is what is needed to preserve the integrity of our United States and maintain domestic tranquility. I'm not all that much and I'm convinced that I could run this country than the Donald....but then, you are likely to tell me that Attila the Hun could do it better. To this I offer a smile. :)

On Wednesday, December 7, 2016 at 11:54:20 AM UTC-5, LL wrote:

Trump named Time's Person of the Year

Time named Donald Trump as Person of the Year on Wednesday morning "for reminding America that demagoguery feeds on despair and that truth is only as powerful as the trust in those who speak it, for empowering a hidden electorate by mainstreaming its furies and live-streaming its fears, and for framing tomorrow's political culture by demolishing yesterday's." 

Note that Trump is in good company. Adolf Hitler (1938), Joseph Stalin (1939 and 1942), Nikita Khrushchev (1957) and Ayatollah Khomeini (1979) have also been granted the title of of Person of the Year. 



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.