Dropping a dime on W.L. Craig

[Greylorn Ell]

My comments were intended to make it clear that not many individuals are mentally qualified to read my book.

It's beginning to appear that the only point you're ever going to make is that you are brilliant while almost everyone else is an idiot. What an original thesis on a philosophy forum!

I'm divergent, not brilliant. Not everyone is an idiot. I've worked on a variety of jobs and dealt with hundreds of individuals, including the men on highway construction crews, people who live in mountain isolation, hunters and shooters. I've also worked with astronomers, physicists, engineers, biochemists, and research physicians. Perhaps 5% of the entire lot are genuine idiots, mostly those in astronomy, astrophysics, and engineering. The majority of these people are men who I would like to have on my backside in troubled times.

I don't regard you as an idiot, not even close. That you are unqualified to read my book is a function of your arrogant attitude, not your intelligence, which I'd put at 130 I.Q. Your focus is the problem. You like to deal with philosophical trivia.

You share the same problem as congressmen who will debate for hours over a minor bill that might cost less than a million dollars, because that is about all that they can wrap their limited minds around. The same gaggle of pinheads will pass a comprehensive health care law, costing trillions of long-term dollars, without even reading it.

You're not stupid, and you'd fit into Congress without a hitch. You're just too lazy to challenge your mind, and too afraid to consider ideas outside your pre-programmed belief systems. It's okay. Welcome to "normal."

Shit. I just fed the troll. Never again.

[Greylorn Ell]

I believe that our universe has been created by intelligent beings, for entirely selfish, non-altruistic reasons. I do not believe that they created the entity that confused religionists refer to as "the human soul."

I have a physics-based definition of the properties that these beings must have, which are related to the properties of the entities known to religionists as "souls."

What can you tell us about the laws of physics that apply in the 'universe', that the intelligent beings, who created our universe, call home?

All kinds of good stuff. but because explaining the difference between the time-dependent and time-independent laws of physics requires lots of careful explanations, designed for the non-physicist, I put that stuff in my damned book.

Rewriting it here seems a waste of time.

[Greylorn Ell]

IMO a "personal" God is an entity who has specifically, deliberately created the "soul" of each human being, and cares about the composite being (soul plus body) throughout its sojourn through life. This personal God is essentially the Catholic God, an entity who is always watching, always judging. He listens to your every lie, grades every exam or quiz you ever take. He watches you shit, piss, and masturbate, and knows exactly how many sulfur-based stinky molecules you emit with every fart. And he keeps a permanent list.

Yes. Nailed it.

I take it neither of you believe that this quoted God is the 'one'...that exists?

Or am i wrong. Do you believe that the specs above relate to a God that you have conceptualised and now believe in?

Atto,

I can only speak for myself. I find that without the concept of intelligent engineering, even the small subset of the universe (mostly our own planet) is inexplicable. I also find the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God who created the universe for the benefit of a gaggle of relative idiots, absurd.

Moreover, principles of causality do not allow me to logically accept the notion that the universe could have been created by a single entity. The traditional God-concept is functionally identical to the Big Bang notion, and both concepts are logically flawed.

[uwot]

....explaining the difference between the time-dependent and time-independent laws of physics requires lots of careful explanations, designed for the non-physicist, I put that stuff in my damned book.

Rewriting it here seems a waste of time.

Just quickly, then. Is 'time independent' fundamentally different from 'non-interactive'? Does anything happen according to your time-independent laws?

[Felasco]

I'm divergent, not brilliant. Not everyone is an idiot. I've worked on a variety of jobs and dealt with hundreds of individuals, including the men on highway construction crews, people who live in mountain isolation, hunters and shooters. I've also worked with astronomers, physicists, engineers, biochemists, and research physicians.

Ok, so we share this in common. I've driven truck loads full of shit for a living (yes, literally) and a bunch of other blue collar jobs, and I've launched a net startup and sold it for significant bucks. So, like you, I've seen all sides of the tracks. My BA is in the education of retarded people, no kidding, so I have the appropriate credentials for posting on forums. See? You're not the only snotty grumpy old man here with miserable social skills.

Perhaps 5% of the entire lot are genuine idiots,

If only 5% of the people you've met are idiots, why are you always talking about idiots? Might that be an idiot thing to do?

Your focus is the problem. You like to deal with philosophical trivia.

Have you been here long enough to even know what my focus is? If you feel you have, ok, please explain what my focus is, and why it is trivia. If you feel I am a troll, go ahead and define what "troll" means to you, and why my posts fit that definition. A good faith effort along these lines, whether correct or not, would make you far more credible than a repetitive pattern of making a lot of lazy vague generalizations.

My theory for the moment is that you are simply afraid of me. You have the opportunity to prove me wrong, and I invite you to do so, as I'd like to be wrong about this.

You're just too lazy to challenge your mind, and too afraid to consider ideas outside your pre-programmed belief systems. It's okay. Welcome to "normal."

Again we see more lazy vague characterizations. If I am too lazy to challenge my mind, it should be easy for you to engage and embarrass me. That would be the way to defeat the troll. Pretending you are ignoring me isn't going to be very convincing, given that you reference me in about every 10th post you write.

[Greylorn Ell]

....explaining the difference between the time-dependent and time-independent laws of physics requires lots of careful explanations, designed for the non-physicist, I put that stuff in my damned book.

Rewriting it here seems a waste of time.

Just quickly, then. Is 'time independent' fundamentally different from 'non-interactive'? Does anything happen according to your time-independent laws?

Yes, and yes.

[Greylorn Ell]

I'm divergent, not brilliant. Not everyone is an idiot. I've worked on a variety of jobs and dealt with hundreds of individuals, including the men on highway construction crews, people who live in mountain isolation, hunters and shooters. I've also worked with astronomers, physicists, engineers, biochemists, and research physicians.

Ok, so we share this in common. I've driven truck loads full of shit for a living (yes, literally) and a bunch of other blue collar jobs, and I've launched a net startup and sold it for significant bucks. So, like you, I've seen all sides of the tracks. My BA is in the education of retarded people, no kidding, so I have the appropriate credentials for posting on forums. See? You're not the only snotty grumpy old man here with miserable social skills.

Perhaps 5% of the entire lot are genuine idiots,

If only 5% of the people you've met are idiots, why are you always talking about idiots? Might that be an idiot thing to do?

Your focus is the problem. You like to deal with philosophical trivia.

Have you been here long enough to even know what my focus is? If you feel you have, ok, please explain what my focus is, and why it is trivia. If you feel I am a troll, go ahead and define what "troll" means to you, and why my posts fit that definition. A good faith effort along these lines, whether correct or not, would make you far more credible than a repetitive pattern of making a lot of lazy vague generalizations.

My theory for the moment is that you are simply afraid of me. You have the opportunity to prove me wrong, and I invite you to do so, as I'd like to be wrong about this.

You're just too lazy to challenge your mind, and too afraid to consider ideas outside your pre-programmed belief systems. It's okay. Welcome to "normal."

Again we see more lazy vague characterizations. If I am too lazy to challenge my mind, it should be easy for you to engage and embarrass me. That would be the way to defeat the troll. Pretending you are ignoring me isn't going to be very convincing, given that you reference me in about every 10th post you write.

You have an overweening sense of your importance. I often use terms like "nitwit" and "pinhead" to reference generalized others, without ever thinking of you personally.

[uwot]

Yes, and yes.

And do they happen in sequence?

[Felasco]

I often use terms like "nitwit" and "pinhead" to reference generalized others, without ever thinking of you personally.

The terms "nitwit", "pinhead" and "troll" appear to be the most prominent terms in your vocabulary.

Your writing would be greatly enhanced if you could arrange a divorce between your personal disappointments and your intellectual interests. Both of us would likely greatly benefit from working with a ruthless editor.

[attofishpi]

Moreover, principles of causality do not allow me to logically accept the notion that the universe could have been created by a single entity. The traditional God-concept is functionally identical to the Big Bang notion, and both concepts are logically flawed.

So are these entities that created our universe subject to the principles of causality?

[Greylorn Ell]

I often use terms like "nitwit" and "pinhead" to reference generalized others, without ever thinking of you personally.

The terms "nitwit", "pinhead" and "troll" appear to be the most prominent terms in your vocabulary.

Your writing would be greatly enhanced if you could arrange a divorce between your personal disappointments and your intellectual interests. Both of us would likely greatly benefit from working with a ruthless editor.

I agree with you on something!

You may be pleased to know that my book suffers from the same problem. Although I hired an excellent editor, she had no problem with my attitude and did not try to correct it. I'm rewriting.

You and I might actually get along. You seem smart enough to make some contributions, which is why I addressed you in the first place. However, my focus is on ideas of a sharply metaphysical nature that lurk around the fuzzy boundary between philosophy and physics, whereas you appear to be concerned with the formal aspects of philosophy that keep philosophy perferssers amused, such as epistemology.

You are an effective criticizer and might make a good editor.

Another perspective on the unpleasantness between us is that each of us is spoiled, and we each want our own way. I want to discuss hard core metaphysics, while you want to talk about words and meanings and proper ways to philosophize. Its like we are both football fans, for example, but I'm mainly interested in watching Green Bay Packer games whereas you are fascinated by NFL organizational politics and game rules.

[Greylorn Ell]

Moreover, principles of causality do not allow me to logically accept the notion that the universe could have been created by a single entity. The traditional God-concept is functionally identical to the Big Bang notion, and both concepts are logically flawed.

So are these entities that created our universe subject to the principles of causality?

Yes, of course!

[Felasco]

I agree with you on something!

Proof of miracles!

You may be pleased to know that my book suffers from the same problem. Although I hired an excellent editor, she had no problem with my attitude and did not try to correct it. I'm rewriting.

Ok, cool, good luck with that.

You and I might actually get along.

I felt that from the beginning, and said so. And then, um, we became us. Oops!

You seem smart enough to make some contributions, which is why I addressed you in the first place.

If I was smart, I wouldn't be here. But nonetheless, address me anyway as it pleases you. I agree butting heads gets boring, so let's try something else.

However, my focus is on ideas of a sharply metaphysical nature that lurk around the fuzzy boundary between philosophy and physics, whereas you appear to be concerned with the formal aspects of philosophy that keep philosophy perferssers amused, such as epistemology.

I don't know what any of this means but perhaps I'll learn as we go along. I would describe my interest as being in the nature of thought, more than the content of thought.

I want to discuss hard core metaphysics, while you want to talk about words and meanings and proper ways to philosophize.

If by hard core metaphysics you mean physics and math, I won't have much to contribute there, as you've already perceived. I did get an A in Physics For English Majors over 40 years ago, this is my only lame claim to physics fame.

If by hard core metaphysics you mean you intend to weave a theory about the ultimate nature of everything, I'm sort of handy at asking annoying inconvenient questions like, define what you mean by everything. The point of the question is not to do an endless semantics dance, but to determine whether it's occurred to you that we currently have no idea what "everything" refers to. And stuff like that...

For myself, I am 61 going on 16, but I'll try to act more like 25 if you wish to attempt that together.

[Greylorn Ell]

If by hard core metaphysics you mean physics and math, I won't have much to contribute there, as you've already perceived. I did get an A in Physics For English Majors over 40 years ago, this is my only lame claim to physics fame.

At least you took a physics course. I don't imagine that it was a prerequisite.

We are, of course, complete opposites. I took physics/EE/math and only one English class (advanced Frosh. Eng, mostly composition). Yes, aced it. That's part of what got me thinking that I could write.

If by hard core metaphysics you mean you intend to weave a theory about the ultimate nature of everything, I'm sort of handy at asking annoying inconvenient questions like, define what you mean by everything. The point of the question is not to do an endless semantics dance, but to determine whether it's occurred to you that we currently have no idea what "everything" refers to. And stuff like that...

I've already woven and published my theory. It is simple, logical, and entirely consistent with empirical evidence, hard-science evidence, and common sense. Intention realized.

When I use common words, I figure on readers accepting their common meanings. "Everything" is a pretty common word. Few people who use it actually mean "the entire universe, God or not, their precursors, etc." I like such words because regular people make more sense of them than they do of jargon, or of exotic words with extensive and conditional definitions.

In physics, as in regular life, "everything" expands to encompass whatever it is that we know, think that we know, or anticipate might be out there awaiting our understanding.

IMO there is no understanding to come from quibbling about the exact meaning of such common words as "everything."

On the other hand, there is another common word that I employ in my book frequently, "energy." This is a physics word as well as a part of common language, so I devote an entire chapter to an explanation of energy at the physics level. It was written for non-physicists such as yourself, people who want to understand the universe and perhaps even human consciousness. These things cannot be understood without first understanding energy. This requires at least three readings of that chapter, until it comes together as conceptual understanding within the mind.

My editor took zero science classes in high school and maybe one algebra class. She made perfect sense of my energy chapter and now subscribes to the pop-science magazine, "Discover."

You've been sufficiently enterprising to have acquired free access to that material. If you want to quibble with a word's meaning, that chapter would be a challenging place to begin. Otherwise...

Some years ago I was trying to inveigle a younger woman into my bedroom, and explained to her that older men are capable of having sex for a longer time than younger men. She asked for my phone number and then added, "This is great. If I ever want to have sex with an old man for a long time, I'll know who to call."

And in turn, if I ever need to quibble with the meanings of common words, I'll know just who to contact.

Greylorn

[Felasco]

IMO there is no understanding to come from quibbling about the exact meaning of such common words as "everything."

Ok, so you want to make huge claims about an arena you can't define, and this is called reason.

Felasco: All of zyborgina is flat!
Greyhorn: What's zyborgina?
Felasco: I have no idea, stop quibbling over words!

In physics, as in regular life, "everything" expands to encompass whatever it is that we know, think that we know, or anticipate might be out there awaiting our understanding.

What percent of everything is the currently observable universe? What is your sample size?

If you can't tell us what your sample size is, or don't think that is a relevant and valid question, there's no reason readers should go further in considering your theory, as it's not reason you're doing.