Maybe cause and effect didn’t exist yet, so the big bang had no cause.
Defining something inherently limits it to a narrow understanding which is why the idea of a God-ometer is ludicrous to begin with.
Counting the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin achieves nothing.
Anyway I’m fairly sure that with your search engine skills you could find more on Maimonides were you so inclined but if it’s nothing to you that’s cool too. You do your thing and I’ll do mine.
16 Likes
If you arrive at any number north of zero, it would be astounding.
5 Likes
If your concept of inventory numbers depends on a compass you might just be bad at math
Assume for a moment, that there are actually 100,000 planets with the right conditions, and have developed intelligent life. Wouldn’t it be true that the beings on each one of those worlds might also think that their world is unique in having intelligent life?
I do think there is something problematic about the existence of consciousness that can’t be explained this way. We know that life is possible, we know the universe is really big, so it is not implausible or altogether unlikely that life and consciousness exist.
However the bit people seem to jump past is that life and consciousness are possible. We exist in a universe governed by seemingly arbitrary laws of physics, and with only the tiniest of variations to those laws life would be impossible.
A universe where life can exist is a highly unlikely thing, and I understand some scientists are appealing to the concept of an infinite multiverse to explain that.
If you lack an understanding of the phrase “north of”, you might just be bad at English.
7 Likes
My first language is American. French, Japanese & limited Hebrew followed so I do make mistakes with English
Yeah, but he went to college to study engineering. He emerged as an advertising guy. Wacky. His writings may still be online. Muncaster.
Actually, providing the dance was a gavotte, and providing that he had a suitable partner (also able, for the sake of argument, both to gavotte, and to dance it on the head of a pin), the answer is a straight forward one.
1 Like
Except to reach the value of 1, requires the existence of at least one angel; hence the astounding part.
2 Likes
Math is one hell of a drug.
4 Likes
The bible says bats are birds, rabbits chew cud, and that insects have four legs. It is now proven that the bible is fundamentally incompatible with biology, and therefore science.
7 Likes
1/0=God
Also, computers can’t deal with God and crash when they find Him through math.
3 Likes
The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy has that covered with their handy Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. It turns out that if you find an error in the bible, the bible isn’t actually wrong it’s because you are using the bible wrong!
[quote]"ARTICLE XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny* that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."[/quote]
The bible is without error! Except for all of that error. The bible is not to be used or judged as a science book, as that is alien to its purpose, AND the bible must be used in science class as a science book to teach the biblically inerrant truth of Creationism (that last bit is only strongly implied by the statement paper - perhaps even they had a shred of shame left and couldn’t quite bring themselves to make that explicit.)
.
.
.
.
*
11 Likes
I’ve always had a problem with this, although maybe you can clear it up. How can we assume that a universe capable of having life is an unlikely thing? As it stands we’ve got a sample size of 1, and that 1 universe certainly seems to be capable of having life in it. The best we can say is that if any of the fundamental physical constants were too different then we wouldn’t have any life as we know it, but we have no way of knowing that the fundamental physical constants can be anything different from what they are because, you know, sample size 1.
6 Likes
I won’t speak for @robulus, but it seems to me that the odds of finding an individual planet that can produce intelligent life are noticeably smaller than the odds of finding a universe that can do so.
Maybe the average universe is big enough and diverse enough that most of 'em can (and do) support life, since their sample size of planets might be assumed to be pretty danged big.
2 Likes
Whoops! Forgot to add the link there.
Yeah, I have no issue with that claim on planets at all, although my intuition says there are probably other planets with life (most star systems have a couple planets, galaxies have about 100b systems, universe has 100s of billions of galaxies, we know life can happen…) I can totally argue either way on it.
At the very least, those who tout how agreeable to life the universe is ignore that it is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999…% (or thereabouts) inimicable to life.
1 Like
