Some time ago I offered Mike the opportunity to write a book about out exchanges, since he had claimed to have written a science fiction novel. He did not agree and after a few of his usual repugnant posts about me I withdrew the offer.
So now I am compiling such a book. It's quite easy. All I have to do is copy all the posts that are relevant. Over time I have stated almost everythng I would want in a book.
But now I am wondering if the book should be on how to destroy a forum. Here are the beginning entries from when Mike first came on board.
Note his immediate sarcasm when being welcomed. Plus his response to Alex, which eventually caused Alex to leave. And our first interaction- between yanniru and Pearson that is.
Also note that he sometimes takes months to reply.
MY BEFUDDLED EXPRESSION
from the Astronomy.Net God&Science Forum
Trying To Put God SOMEWHERE, Huh? - carefuluniverse - November 10, 2001 - 02:50 UTC
Without precisely defining a word, whether "God" or any other, how can we comment scientifically about its existence?
Geometry itself does not actually "exist" in matter but as representation.
It seems pointless to deny that an _undefined_ term refers to something which does not exist.
Maybe your version of God does not exist. Maybe if you define it circularly in a way which does exist, then It does. And how many things have we discovered to exist which we previously knew not?
Welcome - luis_hamburgh - November 10, 2001 - 15:28 UTC
Welcome to astronomy.net. This web site supports HTML, just so you know (took me a couple months before I realized this).
>>>"Geometry itself does not actually 'exist' in matter but as representation."< br>
I agree, but be prepared to defend this position, as there are some folks with a good deal of physics & mathematical knowledge who will passionately argue against notions like this one.
Some of us would argue that mathematics is just a tool/language/science, and others say it is the god that rules the universe. Still, others assert mathematics rules the universe, but that there is no such thing as God (!). There are undoubtedly some very interesting thinkers in these rooms.
So, again, welcome. This discussion forum is one of the very best I've seen. The thread layout can be confusing, but I have found that the Collapse Threads function at the top of the screen is helpful in avoiding the many discussions that turn into lengthy arguments between two people.
Re: welcome - carefuluniverse - November 13, 2001 - 04:52 UTC
Didn't we meet in the Asylum at Caltech
in a previous intarnation?
Thanks for welco-ing me. I traded it
(along with .65 and tip) for two cups
of coffee. Yum! I do not need to defend
that 2+2=4 and I am too ADHD to defend
the elegace of the geometry of Chlorophyll.
but seriously, folks - carefuluniverse - November 13, 2001 - 06:53 UTC
These many clever posts make me laugh,
and you are many clever persons.
Maybe we love digressions too much?
If we precisely defined our terms, we'd soon be centuries ahead.
And miss so many exciting misadventures!
But it's an option. Sure, I'd love to profit
from this vitally important fact. Who wouldn't?
Show of hands?
Managing as many galaxies as I have thoughts? - carefuluniverse - November 16, 2001 - 01:20 UTC
Before saying no such exists, logically, we must have to *define* a Deity
Who could be our enduring guide (and dependable Friend in time of greatest need)
throughout eternity and almost infinite
adventures ... Who does not penalize earnest thought
and Who sympathizes with our doubts, our sense of being overwhelmed sometimes, and our desire to have a part in making the rules which govern our use of our possibilities.
did you confirm that measurement - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2001 - 18:12 UTC
The physics problem posed by Alex
is right from a Russian textbook,
he said. He does not claim to have
verified that these equations are
It sometimes seems Alex is more
a fictional critic whose failure to
criticize actually enhances Luis' image.
Possibly an obtuse series of arguments posted by Luis himself to make Russians seem obtuse?
:) - luis_hamburgh - November 17, 2001 - 18:26 UT
Or maybe Carefuluniverse
is Luis who has
posted the above to discredit
Careful Universe is_ both _Spartacus and Caesar - carefuluniverse - November 17, 2001 - 21:37 UTC
but my name is Mike and I need a job.
I have written a science fiction novel.
I have never known the true identity of Luis Hamburgh.
I live in Central Washington state. I have
dark reddish hair, freckles and a befuddled expression.
Yes, said this in 1976; grizzled veteran crackpot,, am I? - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2001 - 03:40 UTC
You must be a brilliant mind.
Since non-existence does not take up space, it can "co-exist" with existence in space.
And, we may not presume that non-existence is more
natural than existence.
We can assume either or several combinations, but
only to follow their apparent consequences. Unless we actually know the first fact, we would be hasty to assume a creator was necessary to make existence. I think a Creator is necessary to choose forms.
Our disagreements - yanniru - November 30, 2001 - 15:55 UTC
1. Nature does not contain non-existence. If I am wrong, please give an example of a part of nature that does not exist.
2. I do not think a Creator is needed to create existence, or even to choose forms.
It could all happen automatically in accordance with the mathematics that is common to all universes.
So there is no necessary condition for a Creator either revealed in science or in scripture.
If you know of a necessary condition from scripture, please advise me. By scripture, I mean statements specifically dictated by god or a god-like human like Jesus. The Genesis stories are the product of Rabbis. They were told by Moses but not written down by him. There is no evidence that the Genesis story was dictated to Moses from god, as the laws of Moses were. There is evidence that those stories existed before the time of Moses.
However, I do think a supernatural exists and that it is populated but some intelligent beings, and that some of them have superior intelligence, but that none are all-powerful. They are dependent on us, perhaps more than we are dependent on them. Evidence for this is the statement of Mary that if enough people say the rosary everyday, she will be able to convert Russia back to Christianity. So she needs our energy to make things happen on earth- hardly an all-powerful, creator god.
Anxious for your reply,
I did not mean to make you anxious - carefuluniverse - December 4, 2001 - 02:08
But I rather enjoy it. Please forgive me for prolonging.
One key: throughout my posts, one rule seems most important to me: if we have not defined our terms precisely, there is no point arguing. You might be using the word with a subtly different
meaning. In math, such differences are certainly significant.
Life is a bunch of chem reactions capable of self-replicating. - alexander - November 8, 2001 - 16:09 UTC
Funny that life should have a different opinion of itself - occupant - January 13, 2002 - 07:14 UTC
So, If life is deluded into thinking
its whole is bigger than the sum of its parts,
Life is wrong and Alex is right?