RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: My ID Hypothesis, help me sciency types.< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,13:44   

Okay, let's assume there is an omnipotent creator.

Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:07   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,11:44)
Okay, let's assume there is an omnipotent creator.

Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

Dude, just by asking this you're already in huge trouble... :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Quidam



Posts: 229
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,14:07   

Quote
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
Douglas Adams(1952 - 2001)


--------------
The organized fossils ... and their localities also, may be understood by all, even the most illiterate. William Smith, Strata. 1816

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,16:45   

yes, the first assumption that we are sophisticated and have explained an array of things fairly well is probably in error...just playing the odds, of course.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,16:51   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,16:45)
yes, the first assumption that we are sophisticated and have explained an array of things fairly well is probably in error...just playing the odds, of course.

"...fairly well.."

Is creo-quotemining genetic or something?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Kristine



Posts: 3061
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,17:23   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,12:44)
Okay, let's assume there is an omnipotent creator.

Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

1. But what if she's a frog, not a princess?

2. Safe to assume, yes - maybe she just needs space (arh, arh).


3. Female god(desses) aren't as horn-tooty as male gods (arh, arh).

4. She always wants proof.

5. She already has it in for you, Rich. :)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,17:40   

wow, rich wrong on three counts all in the same sentence.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,17:55   

Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,17:40)
wow, rich wrong on three counts all in the same sentence.

Agreed. I apologize. I can't read today. That being said, of all the disciplines there are to study, I suspect we've stumbled on most of them.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,17:55   

Here, just to be safe...here, take this 3-iron and hold it above your head.

Even God can't hit a 3-iron!

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:21   

I am almost fatally attracted to the idea of trying to write a sort of sci-fi style story where God exists and has intervened in the past in more or less the way that religious types believe, yet still has a true nature completely different than what is believed.

I'm not all that widely read in the world of sci-fi (although I call myself a science fiction enthusiast...  I'm just too lazy to read the books), but I know that Heinlein attempted something like this with Job: A comedy of Justice.


All I can come up with is something about this god person doing all those divine intervention things in the past for some sort of guidance purpose (yes, even the massacres), but as humanity got more sophisticated he had to get less and less direct for some reason.  Perhaps, despite all the power that the miracles imply, we're getting too close to being able to see the man behind the curtain so he has to back off?  To make that work I think this being has to be alone, but then I don't know what to do about the question of who created the creator.

I'm sure someone has already written something like this, I know it's not that original an idea.

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:22   

appropriate Steve but it was a 1 iron...although I would have to agree I have trouble with my 3 iron too.

As far as what we have and haven't figured out I used to use the analogy of a chalkboard and in the lower right hand corner I'd draw a square.  I'd say that the square represented everything we know and the board was everything there was to know.  And as a kicker I'd propose that half of what we know is wrong.  Just trying to use scale as a comparison.  One other thing, what if we have stumbled on to most things and we're pretty close to right on them too?  Won't the next million years be kinda boring?

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:23   

Quote (Nomad @ April 22 2008,18:21)
I am almost fatally attracted to the idea of trying to write a sort of sci-fi style story where God exists and has intervened in the past in more or less the way that religious types believe, yet still has a true nature completely different than what is believed.

I'm not all that widely read in the world of sci-fi (although I call myself a science fiction enthusiast...  I'm just too lazy to read the books), but I know that Heinlein attempted something like this with Job: A comedy of Justice.


All I can come up with is something about this god person doing all those divine intervention things in the past for some sort of guidance purpose (yes, even the massacres), but as humanity got more sophisticated he had to get less and less direct for some reason.  Perhaps, despite all the power that the miracles imply, we're getting too close to being able to see the man behind the curtain so he has to back off?  To make that work I think this being has to be alone, but then I don't know what to do about the question of who created the creator.

I'm sure someone has already written something like this, I know it's not that original an idea.

Plus he can't set it up properly at the start..so he has to meddle.

And, he's god - to think it is to do it, to know the answer before the question. Why bother?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,11:44)
Okay, let's assume there is an omnipotent creator.

Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

You mean like this http://cectic.com/110.html ?

Skeptic seems to argue that we don't "now understand an array of things fairly well" but it is undeniable we understand a lot of things better than we did, say, in the time of Christ.

Furthermore, this understanding has gone from assuming something was supernatural (disease as influence of demons) to natural (germ theory). The reverse case is notable by it's absence. ID claims to have such a case, but they have a mountain of evidence against and none for.

This reminds me of an argument against UFOs as alien visitors which sums up the idea nicely (Sadly, I neglected to record who posted it. Someone on sci.space.* a number of years ago):
   
Quote

I think the best place to look for those pesky aliens is anywhere cameras are produced.

Obviously, they must have spies at Kodak, Magnavox, Phillips, etc, since they stay on top of our camera technology enough to always know the exact distance where they will be captured on film as blurry spots!

Our recording and observing capability, not to mention sheer numbers, have increased astoundingly, yet the evidence of UFOs remains the same blurry pictures and hearsay it did in the 50s. You can of course replace "UFO" with just about any other supernatural and miraculous phenomena and get the same conclusion.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:29   

Quote (Nomad @ April 22 2008,18:21)
I am almost fatally attracted to the idea of trying to write a sort of sci-fi style story where God exists and has intervened in the past in more or less the way that religious types believe, yet still has a true nature completely different than what is believed.

I'm not all that widely read in the world of sci-fi (although I call myself a science fiction enthusiast...  I'm just too lazy to read the books), but I know that Heinlein attempted something like this with Job: A comedy of Justice.


All I can come up with is something about this god person doing all those divine intervention things in the past for some sort of guidance purpose (yes, even the massacres), but as humanity got more sophisticated he had to get less and less direct for some reason.  Perhaps, despite all the power that the miracles imply, we're getting too close to being able to see the man behind the curtain so he has to back off?  To make that work I think this being has to be alone, but then I don't know what to do about the question of who created the creator.

I'm sure someone has already written something like this, I know it's not that original an idea.

Nomad -

Here's your Cliff Notes:  If there is a god, (s)he's a dick.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,18:55   

Quote (J-Dog @ April 22 2008,19:29)
Quote (Nomad @ April 22 2008,18:21)
I am almost fatally attracted to the idea of trying to write a sort of sci-fi style story where God exists and has intervened in the past in more or less the way that religious types believe, yet still has a true nature completely different than what is believed.

I'm not all that widely read in the world of sci-fi (although I call myself a science fiction enthusiast...  I'm just too lazy to read the books), but I know that Heinlein attempted something like this with Job: A comedy of Justice.


All I can come up with is something about this god person doing all those divine intervention things in the past for some sort of guidance purpose (yes, even the massacres), but as humanity got more sophisticated he had to get less and less direct for some reason.  Perhaps, despite all the power that the miracles imply, we're getting too close to being able to see the man behind the curtain so he has to back off?  To make that work I think this being has to be alone, but then I don't know what to do about the question of who created the creator.

I'm sure someone has already written something like this, I know it's not that original an idea.

Nomad -

Here's your Cliff Notes:  If there is a god, (s)he's a dick.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

Yeah, that one's already been written in an anthology of 66 or so books and letters.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Nomad



Posts: 311
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2008,23:19   

Quote (J-Dog @ April 22 2008,18:29)
Here's your Cliff Notes:  If there is a god, (s)he's a dick.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

Yeah, but, see... that's just it.  I want an interpretation that makes it all actually make sense.  That's the tricky part.  I want to somehow make this concept of a supernatural monstrosity that so many worship today actually come out as a respectable, honest character, even if it has to be framed from a different perspective.

It's been done on a lesser scale in fiction all the time.  You get a character who you're made to think is bad, either just unpleasant or maybe even the ultimate bad guy of the story.  But then at the end you get the plot twist that suddenly puts it all into focus and suddenly you understand.

In Job: A Comedy of Justice you get to meet Satan.  He's not a bad fellow.  But that's a little easier, it's not that much of a stretch to frame Satan as the underdog.  The Big Guy In White, though, is tricky.  Even Christian written storylines sometimes end up casting him as a deceitful A-hole, like that "the atheist" movie that I found a while ago but now can't find any original copies of, only youtube videos bashing it.  In that story an atheist (horrors!) is basically run through standard psychological torture routines in order to lower his mental resistance so that he can be indoctrinated, then he is made to believe that he's just killed someone when the whole thing was just an illusion, supposedly to make some point about his lack of morality.  But it's God, or in this case Jesus, that does all these things to this guy.  He lies, he manipulates, and then somehow after all that we're supposed to come away believing that atheists are dishonest liars when every single negative connotation that the movie attempted to apply to atheists was also demonstrated through the actions of Jesus.

I find it an intriguing challenge to try to make God come off looking good while still staying true to the biblical narrative.

I'm not trying to make excuses for the invisible man in the sky, don't worry, this isn't the first sign that I'm going to become an apologist.  It's just a creative challenge to me, the sort of thing that, were I inclined to do such things, I'd probably mull over after getting good and stoned, ya'know, along with the other stereotypical musings on the nature of reality that I've been lead to believe follow up a session with the bong in popular fiction.

I used to hang out with some genuine stoners, but we never really discussed the nature of reality.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,00:11   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,16:51)
Quote (skeptic @ April 22 2008,16:45)
yes, the first assumption that we are sophisticated and have explained an array of things fairly well is probably in error...just playing the odds, of course.

"...fairly well.."

Is creo-quotemining genetic or something?

I laughed far louder than is appropriate for one in my condition.

Thank you Rich. Another perfect post.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,00:49   

Rich   I think the idea that we have stumbled upon most of the disciplines aint quite right.  If by this we mean we possess the best theories available to us now then I think you can't deny that, but it is not clear if that is all that you mean.  

If you mean our estimations of the error in our approximation of that out-side-the-box-quantum-objective-reified-capital-R-eality are becoming more precise, I agree.  Self correction, rigorous statistical criteria for model selection, etc.  

If you mean that these estimates are more accurate, I don't think you can claim that.  This 'reality' is always going to be underdetermined.   I don't think you need to add the caveat that scientific theories refer to 'real' things*, it does no explanatory work and it appears to me to be unnecessary ontological baggage.  

That doesn't mean that I think it is wrong to say those sort of things...and we don't settle claims on the basis of this distinction.  Adding this to the account of theories gives muppets and skeptics the chance to make a legitimate (but trivial) point, and subsequently use this as a place to squat and claim 'half of what we know is wrong', move to epistemological antirealism then eat rocks.

ETA*  my favorite examples...  theories considering 'species', 'communities', 'primary productivity', 'habitat suitability', 'natural selection' postulate these entities as more or less analytic statements.  but what is a community?  it can be rigorously defined but this is not the practice (considering sorites paradox, nomothetic fallacy, I don't think it should be rigorously defined.)

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,11:13   

Alright razzer.

Let's say we're talking lollipops, for the sake of anology.
I'm suggesting we've discovered most of the flavours, but haven't made the ultimate lollipop in any flavour.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,11:49   

i guess that analogy, if i understand it right, would imply that 'flavors' are just the sum of the parts and no new flavors can exist except as combinations of old flavors.  i'm not sure that we don't create new flavors in toto, and i am not sure that chocolate banana ain't something totally different from chocolate and banana anyway.  flavor is sufficiently subjective enough to lose the analogy when one asks 'what is the aim of lollipops'.

I think Larry Laudan says it far better than I did.  how we would know the ultimate lolly pop?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,11:57   

There's stuff, which we (somewhat arbitrarily) divided into buckets (Physics, Chemistry, etc). I doubt we'll find many more buckets, but the contents of each isn't fully known. Do you ever wonder if there's an end to knowledge? Does every door have 2 more behind?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,12:06   

Laudan on realism

Yeah I think every door has 2 behind.  this is largely due to accepting some of the argument from sociology.  the content of scientific theories is determined by more than empirical considerations, and pragmatic and contingent social or political processes may in some cases drive the development of a discipline more than other naked fact collection (eg. conservation biology).

of course all this rests on theories about what constitutes 'truth'.  let's get skeptic to tell us.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Assassinator



Posts: 479
Joined: Nov. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,12:09   

Quote (Nomad @ April 22 2008,23:19)
Quote (J-Dog @ April 22 2008,18:29)
Here's your Cliff Notes:  If there is a god, (s)he's a dick.

The Greatest Story Ever Told

Yeah, but, see... that's just it.  I want an interpretation that makes it all actually make sense.  That's the tricky part.  I want to somehow make this concept of a supernatural monstrosity that so many worship today actually come out as a respectable, honest character, even if it has to be framed from a different perspective.

That's been done by saying, "Don't worry, it's all part of a big plan we don't understand, it's all for our good!" and well, that's it.

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,12:46   

Quote (Assassinator @ April 23 2008,12:09)
That's been done by saying, "Don't worry, it's all part of a big plan we don't understand, it's all for our good!" and well, that's it.

You forgot to add:

But send money now*, and help us do God's work, and we will help explain to you, God'sPLan™.

If not, the terrorists win.

Praise Jesus!


*Hurry!  Operator's are standing by.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,16:57   

To the question, is there an end to knowledge it has been proposed that the sum knowledge of the universe would rest upon the sum of the particles and all the configurations, both real and imaginary, of those particles.  It gets dicey when you try to determine if a fully described particle represents the total knowledge of that particle and it's configurations.  Take thoughts for example, can they constitute new knowledge or just a reconfiguration of the network of neurons that compose them.  At this point my head starts hurting and I cop out and just assume that we can never answer that question which leaves us at a point where we have no measuring stick so we'll never really know how much we know.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10756
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,17:10   

I was thinking more;

Quote
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on."

-- Augustus De Morgan

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
skeptic



Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,17:37   

yep, probably a better way of saying the same thing, lol.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,20:27   

Quote
You forgot to add:

But send money now*, and help us do God's work, and we will help explain to you, God'sPLan?.


And don't forget:

"Buy my book."

Henry

  
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2008,20:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 23 2008,11:49)
i guess that analogy, if i understand it right, would imply that 'flavors' are just the sum of the parts and no new flavors can exist except as combinations of old flavors.  i'm not sure that we don't create new flavors in toto, and i am not sure that chocolate banana ain't something totally different from chocolate and banana anyway.  flavor is sufficiently subjective enough to lose the analogy when one asks 'what is the aim of lollipops'.

I think Larry Laudan says it far better than I did.  how we would know the ultimate lolly pop?

Thank God everyone here has a sense of taste
or we wouldn't be talking about it.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
keiths



Posts: 2041
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,03:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,13:44)
Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

Rich,

This is a longstanding problem in theology, right up there with the Problem of Evil.  Try googling 'divine hiddenness'.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Amadan



Posts: 1332
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,05:18   

How about this? Say CERN zaps enough particles to uncover evidence of the additional 6 (or whatever number of) dimensions that string theorists suggest are needed to give a complete account of gravity etc.

Say that intelligence exists in those dimensions and, through a counterpart of CERN's work (or maybe their equivalent of interference on their TVs), that intelligence becomes aware of our poking at their shell.

Communication is (somehow) established. The other side makes us aware that they have unequivocal proof that 'their' universe was deliberately and explicitly created for XYZ purpose. It becomes evident that 'our' dimensions exist as a work-around to accommodate the deliberately intended features of the 'their' universe. Our existence and actions are a matter of indifference to 'their' creator.

I'm just trying to work out how to fit in the love interest and a topless shot in the third reel.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,06:54   

Quote (Amadan @ April 24 2008,06:18)
How about this? Say CERN zaps enough particles to uncover evidence of the additional 6 (or whatever number of) dimensions that string theorists suggest are needed to give a complete account of gravity etc.

Say that intelligence exists in those dimensions and, through a counterpart of CERN's work (or maybe their equivalent of interference on their TVs), that intelligence becomes aware of our poking at their shell.

Communication is (somehow) established. The other side makes us aware that they have unequivocal proof that 'their' universe was deliberately and explicitly created for XYZ purpose. It becomes evident that 'our' dimensions exist as a work-around to accommodate the deliberately intended features of the 'their' universe. Our existence and actions are a matter of indifference to 'their' creator.

I'm just trying to work out how to fit in the love interest and a topless shot in the third reel.

We are Icarus - unnoticed.



Landscape with the Fall of Icarus

Pieter Bruegel, the Elder

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5402
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,07:42   

...and in a weird Cosmic Coincidence, Icarus is the name of the journal in which Guillermo Gonzalez published his paper laying out the Galactic Habitable Zone.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2008,07:50   

Quote (Richardthughes @ April 22 2008,13:44)
Okay, let's assume there is an omnipotent creator.

Given that we've getting somewhat sophisticated as a species and now understand an array of things fairly well, is it safe to assume that the creator doesn't want to be found? I can think of umpteen places he could have put 'made by god'.. but we're just not seeing it. Does this mean he doesn't want proof? Will he punish people for looking?

IMO, God wants you to see his handywork, not him.
For thine is the kingdom, power, and glory. A sort of ways and means committee.

I thought, "To see creation, one needs three things:
A universe, light, and one eye, two for focus."

At that moment, at 5 O'clock this morning, my neighbor started his car and turned
on his lights.  He only had one headlight.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
  33 replies since April 22 2008,13:44 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]