Dude I am a bigbang sort of guy but your own article undoes your argument. You say that matter always existing is fine but God always existing isn't? Neither one has any more logic than the other.

If you check his other blog in philosophy he also claims

• that he can scientifically disprove the existance of God,
• accuses people like me of "evil",
• states that the only thing keeping us from knowing the entire past and future of the universe (and the data concerning every atom and particle therein) is the speed of computers and our lack of understanding of quantum mechanics
• "Worst case, the universe is 1.4 billion years old, not 14 billion years old." Not infinite, apprently...

a good quote from the blog in question, praising "objectivity" of all things...

"One thing you should think about: People in the middle ages thought like you do. That's why they were called the dark ages. People in Russia thought like socialists do who answer the stupidity of your base belief system. That's why 50 million of them died for your false ideal. And finally, people still think like you do. Fortunately, people like me exist, who embrace rational thought, who believe that the universe is knowable and that we will inevitably know all there is to know about the universe and reality. Hence why we have cell phones, computers, TVs, indoor plumbing, oh, and actually don't die from everything under the sun.... (reply #25)"

A kook in a stolen lab coat. Nothing else to see here. Move along...

im in the process of pitching a film that's essentially a prequel to the book of genesis in which god tells the story behind the creation thru narrated flashback recreations--this is obviously gonna be tricky recreating the precreating --of actual events leading up to 'in the beginning..." 

based on my research, as well as some preliminary interviews (ive finally been given unlimited access to him and his contemporaneous notes--altho the meaning of that term is tweaked somewhat by the fact this was pre-time).  god likes taking lunch at one of those noisy thai places on venice blvd a couple blocks from the studio.  better that than jerry's deli  (where the waitresses have learned better than to ask for 'tips').  im not at liberty to divulge much but it was an indirect result of a contractual dispute in which the other parties wound up with badly burnt fingers (obviously we all know whose fingers werent burned but youll have to wait and see the pic for the rest of the scoop) .

God is a contradiction in terms. You can't define God without circular references or contradictory points of view. (hence why Baptists love to make the rule that you cant' argue about God with anything other than the authorized books of the bible... otherwise known as a circular reference)

For God to Exist (and I'll get to proving this later) you would have to have a paradox. There's no such thing as a paradox, and if there was, the unvierse would anilate itself.

If the energy always existed, then the big bang was simply one stage in the existance of that matter, which has already existed. To suggest that God created the energy is disengienous and contradictory by definition of the concept. There is no contradiction in what I said and it follows all of the axioms of the universe. Occam's razor applies, even if you don't believe that I can disprove the existence of god.

If you check his other blog in philosophy he also claims

* that he can scientifically disprove the existance of God,
* accuses people like me of "evil",
* states that the only thing keeping us from knowing the entire past and future of the universe (and the data concerning every atom and particle therein) is the speed of computers and our lack of understanding of quantum mechanics
* "Worst case, the universe is 1.4 billion years old, not 14 billion years old." Not infinite, apprently...

in it's current form from the point of the big bang (which doesn't at all suggest how the energy of the big bang got there, just that it happened).

So of course you still have yet to disprove anhything I've said Bakerstreet.




a good quote from the blog in question, praising "objectivity" of all things...

"One thing you should think about: People in the middle ages thought like you do. That's why they were called the dark ages. People in Russia thought like socialists do who answer the stupidity of your base belief system. That's why 50 million of them died for your false ideal. And finally, people still think like you do. Fortunately, people like me exist, who embrace rational thought, who believe that the universe is knowable and that we will inevitably know all there is to know about the universe and reality. Hence why we have cell phones, computers, TVs, indoor plumbing, oh, and actually don't die from everything under the sun.... (reply #25)"


A kook in a stolen lab coat. Nothing else to see here. Move along...


And why would that be? Because again I'm right? There is a direct correlation between the rise of Christianity and the fall of reason and the start of the dark ages. There is also a direct correlation between the rediscovery of reason and the rise out of the dark ages.

Further there is a direct correlation between socialism and mass murder. Hitler and Stalin are just the two most extreme examples because they weren't hipocrits and actually acted the way they believed instead of saying one thing and then doing another, or worse, applying their ideals to everyone but themselves.

So again, I'm right, you're wrong, and you have no proof to defend your pathetic ideals, and your contradictory positions. Show some proof that I'm wrong Bakerstreet. Find a contradiction, find a paradox, find anything that I've said that contradicts itself of you can show is untrue.

Or better yet, demonstrate, without contradiction how your belief system can work. I would really like to see from you, how subjective beliefs and socialism can be non-contradictory. Demonstrate that, and I'll be really impressed. You might even convert me, because I embrace the truth even if I don't like it. So come on, you've got the opertunity, you can teach me who's right and who's wrong, and you can demonstrate the superiority of yoru belief system. All you have to do is think a little and write it out for all to see.

Problem is you can't and you know it. Almost 300 years of philosophers (starting with Kant) have tried and failed. You certainly don't have a chance.

So until you prove it, shut up, go away and be with your freak friends that want to believe that everything is a mystery and enjoy ignorance. The rest of us will improve the world and make it a better place. And if at all possible, we'll make sure people like you don't get to participate in it, because to do so would be theft on your part (i.e. Evil as I said before)

Before you start swinging Occam's razor around, maybe you should look into his own theological ideas. To him natural theology was impossible. You are shamefully trying to sew philosophy into your science and smooth it over so no one notices. You are espousing a belief system and calling it raw science.

The fact that you over and over try to impose a priori scientific thought to theology shows how bereft of real understanding you are. No real scientist would go round spouting absolutes the way you do. You take supposition, assumption, and call it quantitive fact.

Stop trying to play the objective mind. The stances you've taken, the great bounds you make in the endeavor to make your points, your obliviousness to your own bias, show that you are anything but objective. I have spoken with people on both ends of the spectrum, and frankly you resemble snake-handling Fundamentalists far more than the voice of pure science. You use the language of science to promote philosophy. That is disingenuous at best.

"The rest of us will improve the world and make it a better place. And if at all possible, we'll make sure people like you don't get to participate in it, because to do so would be theft on your part (i.e. Evil as I said before)"

*boggle* Lemme quote that again...

"The rest of us will improve the world and make it a better place. And if at all possible, we'll make sure people like you don't get to participate in it, because to do so would be theft on your part (i.e. Evil as I said before)"

'nuff said, I think. This is an unbalanced, frankly bigotted mind that has no business effecting change or pretending to guide anyone else's belief system. The tossing around of "evil" and the ungilded hate that oozes from this blog and the other is deeply, deeply troubling. He derides hitler and stalin and then writes in a tone that is eerily remenscent of them...

This is our objective scientist, motivated by reason, logic. You're a sick man.

Be calm, all; everyone knows that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, precisely because it cannot and should not engage in attempting to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty.

"Be calm, all; everyone knows that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, precisely because it cannot and should not engage in attempting to prove or disprove the existence of the Almighty."

Agreed. What is worse, though, is philosophy dressed up as science and used to teach hate and intolerance. To deride Hitler and Stalin and then use the *exact* tactic is frighteningly deviod of self-reflection.

Sorry, Steve, but it is difficult to deal with someone who claimes to be governed by objectivity and logic, and who then calls me evil and blames all of mankind's wrongs on me and my "freak friends". Either he doesn't understand the concepts he is espousing, or is deranged and is unable to judge himself by his own standards...

The troubling fact is he seems to understand the concepts, so I am left only with the second option.

You should publish this in scientific journals since it's obviously true. You'll make history!

"You should publish this in scientific journals since it's obviously true. You'll make history!"

Better yet, he and his kind could don their jackboots and "make sure people like you (me) don't get to participate" in society and win by default. Where have I heard that before? Surely it wasn't from the likes of Hitler and Stalin, since he despises them so. Or maybe it isn't their tactics he despises, rather their non-objective ideologies...

bothersome.

Hey guys! Here's an idea! If you hate philosophy so much, stop making useless, hateful posts in the philosophy forum! See, some people actually like to discuss the different philosophies instead of attacking the people who present them. Everyone here seems intelligent, so why don't you stop calling each other stupid and evil and start discussing the topic. In case you've forgotten, this article isn't entitled: "Let's Bash John Galt!'. I'm pretty sure its actually about the origins of the universe. I completely admit that I tend to get frustrated about things I believe strongly in, and maybe this post will only make things worse. If so, I apologize. I also apologize for the sarcasm I just used. Just keep in mind that name calling will get you nowhere. Some of the things you guys have written are really interesting and deserve a good debate, but other things are really pointless and harsh. Keep attacking the philosophies, not the people.

BakerStreet, keep in mind that I'm not taking sides or calling anyone evil, but I think JG is right in that you haven't ever actually showed why he's wrong. No matter how many times you say that he is stupid and evil and wrong, it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't disprove anything.

And I also don't understand why you are complaining that he uses science and philosophy together. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Science has to be used to support theories. Everything is science. Observing the world around you is science. Understanding it is science. If you ingore those things, you can't really create philosophies. And of course philosophy can be used in bad ways. That doesn't make philosophy itself good or bad, though. It just makes certain ones bad. If you think about it, everyone uses philosophy. Any school of thought on a particular issue can be called a philosophy. So all the stuff you guys are talking about is philosophy. But lets stop arguing about the ways to argue. Unless you want to start a new article on theology and science and philosophy. Actually, you should do that. It sounds interesting.

That said, I think you guys are just a little too angry about nothing much. I think you both have some valid points, and it would be awesome everyone would be more calm when posting on the actual topic at hand.

Hey guys! Here's an idea! If you hate philosophy so much, stop making useless, hateful posts in the philosophy forum! See, some people actually like to discuss the different philosophies instead of attacking the people who present them. Everyone here seems intelligent, so why don't you stop calling each other stupid and evil and start discussing the topic. In case you've forgotten, this article isn't entitled: "Let's Bash John Galt!'. I'm pretty sure its actually about the origins of the universe. I completely admit that I tend to get frustrated about things I believe strongly in, and maybe this post will only make things worse. If so, I apologize. I also apologize for the sarcasm I just used. Just keep in mind that name calling will get you nowhere. Some of the things you guys have written are really interesting and deserve a good debate, but other things are really pointless and harsh. Keep attacking the philosophies, not the people.

You do understand that John Galt hasn't exactly been the non-offensive respectful person in his posts right? True, that doesn't justify us bashing him (and I personally wasn't bashing him, I do think he should try to get it published if he's so positive and 100% sure it's objectively true), but it's pretty hard to carry a decent discussion with somebody who doesn't facilitate it with the proper respect.

BakerStreet, keep in mind that I'm not taking sides or calling anyone evil, but I think JG is right in that you haven't ever actually showed why he's wrong. No matter how many times you say that he is stupid and evil and wrong, it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't disprove anything.

I'm no philosophical genius, but the burden of proof lies on the one who made the claim. Why should Bakerstreet disprove what John Galt hasn't proven? Not only does his claim that the universe is infinite but at the same time expanding contradicting, but also saying something is based on "Occam's Razor" does not make not automatically make it true.

And I also don't understand why you are complaining that he uses science and philosophy together. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. Science has to be used to support theories. Everything is science. Observing the world around you is science. Understanding it is science. If you ingore those things, you can't really create philosophies. And of course philosophy can be used in bad ways. That doesn't make philosophy itself good or bad, though. It just makes certain ones bad. If you think about it, everyone uses philosophy. Any school of thought on a particular issue can be called a philosophy. So all the stuff you guys are talking about is philosophy. But lets stop arguing about the ways to argue. Unless you want to start a new article on theology and science and philosophy. Actually, you should do that. It sounds interesting.

Sure, you could call anything science, but if you do, then don't expect to be taken seriously on matters of science. For one thing, there is a scientific method.
If philosophy really does say "Everything is science, and the scientific method is unnecessary" then, well, philosophy isn't science nor is anything based on such philosophy. It's just masturbation.

Molly: there's nothing wrong with using philosophy with science, as long as you say so before hand and don't pretend your final result to be objective. If you look back on Hitler and others, though, you'll find that there IS something wrong with taking personal philosophy and CALLING it science, i.e. making people believe a subjective belief because you lend it the guise of objective "Truth". Hitler had tons of scientists measuring people's heads, talking about the shape of people's noses, making evolutionary trees, etc., and in the end he took his subjective beleifs and lent enough pseudo-science to it to mislead people.

Not unlike J.G. going off, using his "objective reason", calling people evil, breeding contempt for other's beliefs, saying people like me and my freak friends should be prevented from taking part in society. He can't make a single post without wandering of into some haze of Ayn Rand and personal philosophy, all the while pretending to be ruled only by objective logic. That isn't your description of "Everything is philosophy". That is someone denying subjective motivation and then using the platform to make a subjective, philosophical rant. In other words, being a liar.

It's cute how you guys keep trying to bait me into disproving things when my whole point is you can't KNOW any of these things, and that all this Truth he is spouting is an illusion. I'm not going to enter into such silliness when I can't test my results any more than our impotent scientist J.G. here. The fact is if this were all wrapped up as easily as he is posing it he'd have a Nobel prize and there'd be no questions left to ask.

Why is it always the kookie guy railing about how people are evil that seem to have all the answers. They really don't. J.G. will make himself feel better by saying we are all stupid, uneducated, or evil, but in the end he knows that his answers are SUBJECTIVE. Even if he could prove them here, he couldn't say they would hold up a light year from here or 20 minutes in the future. To do so is supposition, belief.

The stuff he spouts has been around forever, and oddly enough people far more educated than he or I still reject it and continue to ask questions. I deal with it by saying there's a lot we simply can't know because of our limited ability to observe the universe. He deals with it by believing the rest of society is ignorant or evil.

Choose who you like, but I think the odds are a lot better he'll end up in a tin-foil hat than I will. He already has his paranoia honed to a fine edge.

You do understand that John Galt hasn't exactly been the non-offensive respectful person in his posts right? True, that doesn't justify us bashing him (and I personally wasn't bashing him, I do think he should try to get it published if he's so positive and 100% sure it's objectively true), but it's pretty hard to carry a decent discussion with somebody who doesn't facilitate it with the proper respect.

Right, sorry, I didn't mean to sound like I was taking sides. I want everyone to be nicer.

I'm no philosophical genius, but the burden of proof lies on the one who made the claim. Why should Bakerstreet disprove what John Galt hasn't proven? Not only does his claim that the universe is infinite but at the same time expanding contradicting, but also saying something is based on "Occam's Razor" does not make not automatically make it true.

Then Bakerstreet needs to point out the flaws in his arguments and show why they haven't been sufficiently supported rather than just posting that JG is a lunatic, and therefore wrong.

Sure, you could call anything science, but if you do, then don't expect to be taken seriously on matters of science. For one thing, there is a scientific method. If philosophy really does say "Everything is science, and the scientific method is unnecessary" then, well, philosophy isn't science nor is anything based on such philosophy. It's just masturbation.

No, my point wasn't that everything is science, it was that everything is based on science, so I don't understand why there is a problem with using science (facts) to support a theory or philosophy. I think it's impossible not to.

Molly: there's nothing wrong with using philosophy with science, as long as you say so before hand and don't pretend your final result to be objective.

Bakerstreet: People have "personal philosophies" for a reason: they believe them to be completely true. Why should JG give and support his theory that he believes to be entirely true, but preface it with "This isn't necessarily true" just because some people disagree with him? It seems to me that you are just as certain of the truth of your statements as he is of his.

My point is that you should stop debating the ethics of debate and philosophy. If you attack everyone for saying that their beliefs are completely true, you would have to attack everyone. So instead of saying that JG is evil because he thinks he's right, just tell him why he's wrong. Actually, that goes for both of you. I really really like it when people are nice!