(May 31, 2013 at 7:38 pm)phil77 Wrote:

Quote:Pragmatism and adaption.
Your point?

---

Does this regard multiple universes

I don't know, does it?

(May 31, 2013 at 7:44 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 7:38 pm)phil77 Wrote:

---

Does this regard multiple universes

I don't know, does it?

Quote:I think I covered that in the snippet you took out.

Richard Carrier dealt with the whole issue.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/r...kooks.html

Quote:Conclusion

From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the Gospels do not seem very remarkable. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by many people, who at the time had little in the way of education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics--it is not that there were no skilled and skeptical observers. There were. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake. After all, the wise learn from history. The fool ignores it.

It may well do! The faith in multiple universes allows your lot to be able to reason in their limited minds, why this particular uniniverse is suitable for life. In my vernacular it is called a ' cop out'.

(May 31, 2013 at 7:59 pm)phil77 Wrote: It may well do! The faith in multiple universes allows your lot to be able to reason in their limited minds, why this particular uniniverse is suitable for life. In my vernacular it is called a ' cop out'.

No in your vernacular its "slight of hand insult with as many incorrect generalisations thrown in for good measure as possible into one sentence."

And you were doing so well as well. Just couldn't resist ye olde (the old) jab at 'us lot' though, right?

But I agree, it could do, but then equally, it might not. That's really the epitome of a structure built on pragmatism and not ultimate objective truths.

(May 31, 2013 at 7:59 pm)phil77 Wrote: It may well do! The faith in multiple universes allows your lot to be able to reason in their limited minds, why this particular uniniverse is suitable for life. In my vernacular it is called a ' cop out'.

Besides the multiverse theory, there are several models going around: Reinhartd 's cyclic theory, Smolin's Fecund theory, Penrose's Cosmological Conformal Cyclic theory, and the Hawking-Krauss' model of a universe from nothing.

Unlike religion which claims the absolute truth with no evidence supporting such claim, science hasn't determined which model best fits the data. But slowly, it will.

(May 31, 2013 at 8:07 pm)little_monkey Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 7:59 pm)phil77 Wrote: It may well do! The faith in multiple universes allows your lot to be able to reason in their limited minds, why this particular uniniverse is suitable for life. In my vernacular it is called a ' cop out'.

Besides the multiverse theory, there are several models going around: Reinhartd 's cyclic theory, Smolin's Fecund theory, Penrose's Cosmological Conformal Cyclic theory, and the Hawking-Krauss' model of a universe from nothing.

Unlike religion which claims the absolute truth with no evidence supporting such claim, science hasn't determined which model best fits the data. But slowly, it will.

---

(May 31, 2013 at 8:02 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 7:59 pm)phil77 Wrote: It may well do! The faith in multiple universes allows your lot to be able to reason in their limited minds, why this particular uniniverse is suitable for life. In my vernacular it is called a ' cop out'.

No in your vernacular its "slight of hand insult with as many incorrect generalisations thrown in for good measure as possible into one sentence."

And you were doing so well as well. Just couldn't resist ye olde (the old) jab at 'us lot' though, right?

But I agree, it could do, but then equally, it might not. That's really the epitome of a structure built on pragmatism and not ultimate objective truths.

---

It's quite simple though! The greatest scientists embark on a pilgramage of faith. Some strike lucky like Eistein (who thought quantum theory was a crock of shite) Newton ( who knew a creator would create laws of nature) or Crick. etc. Scientist don't sing from the same hymn sheet, they can invest their lives in a project that comes to nothing, but they had faith in it, mostly to nought!!

(May 31, 2013 at 8:14 pm)phil77 Wrote: It's quite simple though! The greatest scientists embark on a pilgramage of faith. Some strike lucky like Eistein (who thought quantum theory was a crock of shite) Newton ( who knew a creator would create laws of nature) or Crick. etc. Scientist don't sing from the same hymn sheet, they can invest their lives in a project that comes to nothing, but they had faith in it, mostly to nought!!

And investing time and resources in a theory that is at least underpinned through theoretical paradigms (whether currently observable or testable or not) is the same as worshipping a divine entity and telling everyone else to do the same....how exactly? I mean, you're really just reinforcing the fact that the scientific method is based on pragmatism (comment RE: Einstein).

You say "it's quite simple though", but I fear a big resounding false equivocation rising from the depths like a leviathan seeking to consume all that it surveys. In short, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make if not the above?

I do appreciate the lack of incorrect generalisations in this post though, so thanks for taking my hurt on board.

(May 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 8:14 pm)phil77 Wrote: It's quite simple though! The greatest scientists embark on a pilgramage of faith. Some strike lucky like Eistein (who thought quantum theory was a crock of shite) Newton ( who knew a creator would create laws of nature) or Crick. etc. Scientist don't sing from the same hymn sheet, they can invest their lives in a project that comes to nothing, but they had faith in it, mostly to nought!!

And investing time and resources in a theory that is at least underpinned through theoretical paradigms (whether currently observable or testable or not) is the same as worshipping a divine entity and telling everyone else to do the same....how exactly?

You say "it's quite simple though", but I fear a big resounding false equivocation rising from the depths like a leviathan seeking to consume all that surveys around it. In short, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make if not the above.

---

(May 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)phil77 Wrote:

(May 31, 2013 at 8:29 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And investing time and resources in a theory that is at least underpinned through theoretical paradigms (whether currently observable or testable or not) is the same as worshipping a divine entity and telling everyone else to do the same....how exactly?

You say "it's quite simple though", but I fear a big resounding false equivocation rising from the depths like a leviathan seeking to consume all that surveys around it. In short, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make if not the above.

---

Have you swallowed a dictionary! LOL, for fuck's sake. You sound like a Marvel Comic villain!! I just go by everyday life. I know what bereavement and joy of life is. I have seen people in utter despair being fixed up by faith. I can't explain to you because some people are not meant to have it, as it says in the Bible ( why? I don't know) I prefer the name Kracken!

(May 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)phil77 Wrote: Have you swallowed a dictionary!

No, not recently?

(May 31, 2013 at 8:31 pm)phil77 Wrote: LOL, for fuck's sake. You sound like a Marvel Comic villain!! I just go by everyday life. I know what bereavement and joy of life is. I have seen people in utter despair being fixed up by faith. I can't explain to you because some people are not meant to have it, as it says in the Bible ( why? I don't know) I prefer the name Kracken!

Oh! The profanity! It completely vexes me when I read them. How would you prefer me to 'speak' (I was born in the east end and live in Birmingham. How many brummies do you know who talk with the wit of a play-write who has tanked up on a daily dose of his favorite Guardian columnists only to be infused with a delightful sense of melancholy)?

If I were to be a marvel comic villain, I guess I'd be Magneto, becuase, you know, magnets and shit.

Also, 'you can't explain to me becuase some people aren't meant to have it?' Have what? A fix from faith? I don't mind people believing whatever they want (each unto their own and all that). But I object when someone tells me something is right because they know its right, especially when it's based on un-evidenced beliefs. But really, I think the point I originally made in reply to you on the pragmatism of the scientific method being the very grounding on which it has evolved and strengthened is still unchallenged.

So just in case, please, Allow me (this is the best I could do with a leviathan short of quoting Hobbes):