Atheists who attack Christianity

I found his bio on my own. He is into all kinds of things, but nothing about an earth-like planet is mentioned.

Do you think he decided not to publish this information in order to make money on it, while at the same time releasing all that other data?

Oh definitely.

I'm still wondering why you think this. Is there a rule against outing Alts?

You actually outed this alt yourself in the following thread...

/103/bd/34571/1.html#post545531

Where you said "Oops. I was logged in as Uma for administrative purposes and forgot to switch back to Ulrika.

~Ulrika~"

Remember that post?

You are so funny

Someone READ! Huzzah!

No - the implication is that all /possible/ events must play out someplace in an infinite universe. "Absurdity" does not enter into the equation - only those things that are permitted by the (local) laws of physics. Deities are certainly absurd - the laws of physics in the observed and observable universe preclude the possibility of the existence of the deity of Abraham.
No, we do not have a 'complete descriptive set of all physical laws'. Like Goedel's incompleteness theorem, our formal description of the laws of physics is complex enough to be self-referential and thus can be consistent or complete but not both; We do have an extremely comprehensive set of /consistent/ physical laws, however, and they directly demonstrate that the existence of deities - and the deity of Abraham in particular - are categorical impossibilities. The part where the laws are incomplete - quantum physics, for instance - are not the areas that the deity of Abraham was ever declared to exist. The ancient Jews had no knowledge of quantum physics. Renormalisation is mentioned nowhere in the Tanakh. Photons existing as both a particle and a wave - noplace in all the annals of ancient Judea. Lack of a global flood. Common descent and common ancestry. Round earth, revolving around a solar body, with solar planets.

Tegmark's case is not 'shaky'. It is a simple closed statement with no free variables.

Ooooh, you read his /bio/. You must know all of his academic work by heart from that.

Bless your heart.

Can you provide any information about this planet at all? The name for example.

Its amazing how this thread hasn't been locked or reported.

Why would it be closed?

Hey! I'm the one with the justified attitude here!

I'm a highly educated woman who thinks fast, talks fast, and walks fast. I don't hold people's hands unless I like them, and I don't sit around waiting for people to play catch-up on a discussion. When I step into a thread, it goes places and if you don't like for threads to go places, then I'm sure that drawing strawmen (Like Kevn loves to do, like you're doing above) will amuse you while the rest of us discuss interesting things, broaden our horizons and go interesting places.

The thread discussion has moved into the realm of theoretical mathematics, the philosophy of science, and cosmology - the challenge is right in front of you, and you have only yourself to blame if you can't keep up.

I know what the leading objections to Mr. Tegmark's work are, and what my personal objections to Mr. Tegmark's work are. I'd like to see if anyone rises to the occasion and shows me something interesting, new, or informative.

Can you do it?

Who says it must? Just because it has doesn't mean it's THE only place it COULD happen.

More to the point, what do you mean perfect? On a planet with temperatures ranging from -40C to +50C, with land that goes from frozen ice to arrid desert, weather that goes from decade long droughts to massive monsoons... and that's not including the extremes. That little lot is in no way perfect.


But it's a damned big universe... and I doubt anyone can really understand how big it is.

Here's an example... there are over 1 billion stars in this galaxy alone... let's be generous and say only 1% of them have planets... (lets be really generous and say there's only 1 billion stars) That gives us 10 Million planets...
Let's be generous and say that only 1% of those are earth-type planets... that leaves 100,000 potential earths out there. (and it is generous... so far we know that 1 in 14 planets is an earth-type planet... or about 7%)
Now, let's be really generous and say that only 0.01% have the needed ingredients of life... that leaves us with just 10 planests that COULD develop life. (considering they've found the needed ingredients on Mars as well as in comets, that is so incredibly generous as to be rediculous... but I'm making a point here)

So, 10 planets in the Galaxy... doesn't sound like a lot, does it?
Now multiply that by the number of known galaxies in the universe... which, by the way, is currently numbered in the Millions...

You end up with 10's of millions of planets with the potential to develop life.


The insistance that it could only happen on this planet? That is the height of arrogance...

Silly: "Because Ulrika posted to it!"
Vain: "Because /I/ posted to it!"
Paranoid: "Because Kevn Klein's been AR'ing every one of my posts that he can't competently respond to that contains the topic "The deity of Abraham doesn't exist.""
Vague: "Y'all sure are rude..."
Lawyerly: "Because according to the ToS, the following topics are forbidden in the forums ....<snip thirty lines>"
Active aggressive: "Because this discussion makes me uncomfortable!"
Creationist Christian: "This discussion is an abomination unto the Lord!"
Passive aggressive: "Uhm, I'm going to go watch American Idol."
Systems Administration: "Do you have /any/ idea how much bandwidth costs?"
Trite Jokester: "Arguing with people on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics..."
Slightly /less/ Trite Jokester: "Momma told me that this thread was lahk a bahx of chawcklits..."
Pragmatist: "You /do realise/ that that will /never happen/, right?" -- in reference to Kevn knowing shame for his transgressions against men and his deity
ResMod: "Aw, it the fight was just getting interesting!"
Average Second Life User: "OMGoth these people have too much time on their hands."
Schizoid: "You mean I'm /not/ hallucinating this thread?"
... TBC with fresh inspiration.

I think we would agree that if life did appear without design, it would happen in a temperate place with all of the ingredients needed, in the right amount and operating under natural laws that happen to work in favor of life. We would have to assume this first life survived it's "birth", but was able to some how reproduce. It would have to have the ability to process food to get energy. It would need to process waste and expel it. It would need to exchange gases (breath). And any other function a living being needs to survive.

About Mr. Tegmark? No, I'll toss it on the pile of somewhat interesting theories along with the rest. I'll continue to take cosmological theories with a grain of salt as long as they downplay the role of a conscious viewpoint in dependent origination, and as long as they don't jibe with my own experiences.

Infinities collapse when a viewpoint is assumed, and when viewpoints agree, then we have reality. Most arguments about physical law precluding the possibility of God, or gods, would necessarily invalidate my own existence and experiences. Now of course we have it from Jake that everything is illusion including self, but I've chosen to be.

I have never ARed you. I haven't ARed anyone in a long time. I gave up months ago when I saw a certain person get away with it time after time. But it can catch up with one I suppose.

I give you permission to ask LL if I ARed anyone in the forums in the last few months.

Keep it GOING!! This thread won't get closed because Kevn POSTED IT.
It must be the work of the all mighty creationist in the first place! Ooooo and Ahhhhhh.

No. I'm afraid theoretical mathematics isn't one of my usual areas of study, Finning. I can admit that and simply accept that you know more about it than I do.

I think it's wonderful that you're highly educated, and you've certainly demonstrated it. Kudos. I strive to educate myself as well, but of course no one of us can know everything, and I also accept that. I'm sure you do as well, as highly educated people tend to be more, not less, aware of their limitations, at least when their egos don't become overinflated.

My issue was only with the fact that you just dropped a name and stepped back (unless I missed something). You didn't really even cite a particular work and say, "If you refer to this, you'll see what I'm talking about." I've done the latter before myself, and it's perfectly legitimate to refuse to try to explain an entire book to someone in a post on a message board. I submit that it is not legitimate, however, to simply throw out a name. As well, it seems a mistake to suggest that one scientist's theories, however interesting, are absolute and above criticism.

That said, I do apologize for the sarcasm -- I think I got a little overzealous after our last little clash. I am curious, if skeptical. Would you mind suggesting something by Max Tegmark that you think is convincing?

You know, I've noticed that I can't seem to get into trouble or get any threads locked either, even when I've almost tried to.

Do I benefit from favoritism?

I hope so!

But Max Tegmark specifically addresses the role of the concious viewpoint!

Favoritism? Is that where that someone who kisses someones.. *beep* here enough that they could get away with anything?

Yes! I want that, but I want it for free.

Oh well in that case. I think you've come to the right place!

Okay, point it out if you would. I admit I lost interest after the first couple levels.

It's his "Ultimate Ensemble Theory of Everything", which contains constructs that he terms "Self-Aware Substructures", and humans (or a concious viewpoint) would fall under that category.

It's fascinating reading.

Now, why did I bring up Max Tegmark's work? Well, it goes beyond the fact that his work in cosmology patly answers and obviates Kevn Klein's ridiculous and ignorant assertions earlier in this thread;

Kevn's got a theme in his posts - that theme is this: "X group is attacking Christians!" Tegmark's work would doubtless be considered by Kevn (If Kevn were academic enough or educated enough to be aware of it) to be "Attacking Christianity" - the implications of SASs in the UEToE includes the notion that sentient (self-aware) substructures (humans) are effectively /immortal/ - they cannot cease to exist.

Now, that sounds a lot like "Humans have immortal souls" - but without the notion of it being by the grace of Kevn's deity.

Since Kevn's religion has this notion that it is only by the grace of his deity that humans have immortal souls, he will (eventually) perceive this as a "humanistic [faith/religion] attack on Christianity" and will begin to do whatever he can get away with to try and persuade people to look at /him/, and by extension /his religion/ - instead of paying attention to the thing he perceives as being in competition with his religion.

Now - let me digress for a moment.

The United States has Freedom of Religion. Freedom is a great thing. It means that Kevn is free to practice his religion in any way he sees fit, so long as he doesn't interefere with the rights of others by doing so.

Freedom is a two-edged-sword, though - Freedom means that not only are you free from interference, you're free from a safety net too - The government isn't going to block your religion, but its' not going to give special favours to your religion /either/.

For centuries, in the United States, Kevn's particular brand of Christianity has enjoyed being ensconced in the rites and legislation of the land.

Now, Kevn and his ilk are being told that the other part of FREEDOM has come to call, that they must pay the piper - It's a free market of ideas and of religions, and they don't get special treatment anymore.

Kevn sees - ala the year 1925 - "evolution" as an idea being in competition with his particular brand of Christianity - and he sees /all/ competition as inherently an attack. He wants everyone else to see any such competition as an attack, too - which is why he has to manufacture a "humanist religion" out of science, while at the same time manufactures "Intelligent Design Science" out of his religion - thinking that mere appearances are sufficient qualifications to compete.

What he's really saying (and what those of his Ilk are saying - Howard Ahmanson, Pat Robertson, Falwell, the Discovery Institute, Ralph Reed, PNAC, George Bush, the Republican Party {No, I am not kidding}) -
- by carrying on his (their) public outcry of "Atheists attacking Christianity" and "Creation (by which he means his special interpretation of the Genesis book of the Tanakh) is a Fact!" - his entire body of discourse, really - is this:

It is a public proclamation that his [faith/religion] is incapable of surviving in a free society, on its' own merits, without substantial special favours from the government and the elimination of anything he (they) feels competes with their religion - despite Christianity being the majority faith in the country, despite it having a large amount of untaxed income and land holdings, despite centuries of special treatment and having the single-most-widely-published-and-distributed treatise in existence (excepting, perhaps, Windows9.

What his posts say, in essence, is "Wah! I cannot compete with this! I (we) demand that You make it stop!"

My response is thus:

Your choice of religion, worldview, faith, education, outlook on life - ultimately no-one's responsibility but your own. Freedom. You're FREE, and so is EVERY ONE ELSE. Every time you lie, slander, B.S., strawman, - willfully or otherwise - or willfully remain /ignorant/, you're shirking your responsibilities that come with being /free/. When you demand that others stop what they are doing to attend to your religion's (your) needs, you are shirking your responsibilities that come with being /free/.

It is no-one else's duty, responsibility, or obligation - not mine, not the participants in this forum, not Linden Labs', not the public education system's, not the government's - to compensate for your lack of confidence in your religious beliefs or the failings thereof, and neither for your inability to treat and characterise others fairly.

You're /free/. So is everyone else. That comes with a responsibility, so start fulfilling it.

Never have I felt questioning Christianity is an attack on Christianity. If you can show a single post where I complained about someone questioning Christianity, I'd be thrilled to see it. But it doesn't exist, you are creating a straw-man argument, which I choose to ignore.

You see, the issue is, rather than reading the thread and my posts, you assume what you want to assume, and argue from that prospective.

It's fine to do that, but I won't be responding to the wasted posts.

Either argue directly with what I /ACTUALLY/ say or continue your game. Quote me and argue those points, or I won't be responding. TY, see you later.

You consider the teaching of science to be an attack on Christianity and a "humanist agenda". Finning has a good point, Kevn.