I'd forgotten just how intrusive laugh tracks were back then... and how slow things went.

It is credible to believe that the Universe was designed and created by God.


This is something I should have clarified before - my use of the word "universe" includes any sort of God (who would, then, have created the rest of it - presumably). This term gets used a lot of different ways in different contexts, and I don't think the way I'm using it is, in any way, more correct and my use of the term over different conversations is likely inconsistent. Anyways, how we're using the term certainly has a huge impact on the discussion. So, to be clear, when I say universe I mean absolutely everything: God (or Gods or whatever), laws, matter, and anything else that can be said to be. So it makes no sense for me to say "God created the Universe", but it certainly makes sense to say "God created everything else in the Universe" or (if you see things a different way) "Everything in the Universe is part of God" (or some variation). Hopefully that clarifies my position.

Anyways, if you have a universe that includes a God with certain properties, that God goes ahead and designs and creates a bunch of other stuff and you end up "here". The minimum we need for this kind of universe to proceed is one being, with certain properties.

The minimum we need for a Godless universe to get to "here" is a certain set of arbitrary physical laws, and possibly some matter (matter may be optional - but, to be clear, "nothing" is not an option - the universe at very least would need physical laws to get going.. and that is very much something, and it's something that's unavoidably arbitrary).

The point I'm trying to make is, I don't know isn't a theory. What most atheists mean when they say "I don't know" is "I know it isn't the Christian God, but otherwise I don't know". The next thing they say is, you believe in God because you're afraid. That I "chose" God because I am scared of death, or because the Universe is too big and scary for my mind to handle the uncertainty of not knowing.


Well.. I, for one, don't know it isn't the Christian God. I just don't have any real reason to believe that right now. And I didn't mean to suggest YOU accepted an idea because you're "scared" - rather, what I meant to say (and didn't say clearly) is that it wouldn't be a good idea to accept something just because "something" is better than "I don't know". I prefer no explanation to accepting one that I don't have reasons to accept (and, again, I'm not saying you don't have reasons - I'm saying I don't have them).

And to be clear: I wasn't saying Devil's Tower is a current mystery (one of sufficient import) or that it wasn't caused by water action (I was making a little crack at old timey semi-scientists that explained lots of stuff away by referencing the Biblical flood).

Rather, I was suggesting a hypothetical wherein I had discovered Devil's Tower and didn't have any ideas about it's cause (which is not incomparable with where we're at with abiogenesis). In both cases, my point is that even without a real candidate theory it's not crazy to assume the explanation will be similar to other explanations we've accepted, and to guess that the explanation will not introduce large new assumptions.

For a geologic feature, you'd expect to be able to explain the feature through known mechanisms - erosion, glaciation, deposition, tectonic activity, geothermal weirdness, etc.. and you'd try to find an explanation using those sorts of things before you'd look further afield. You certainly couldn't guarantee the explanation isn't something more extraordinary, but your incoming bias against that possibility is not irrational - it's just following a reasonable search pattern.

If we can boil all of the possibilities down to design and chance, how could you tell which Universe you were in?


I kind of abandoned this part because I don't think our differences on this matter are terribly interesting. But I'll come back to it for a second to clarify. To me, there is no important difference between these two things you're talking about.

I don't see myself as terribly different than a falling rock. While it's useful in many situations to think of myself as designing something, in absolute terms me building a house is no different than water eroding through a rock - they're just things that happen following from the state and rules of the universe. What you're calling "design" and "chance" are both, to me, just parts of "the rules for moving from one state to another" and I don't see a big philosophical difference between them (I also don't think there's any important philosophical reality to "free will", if that helps you understand my position).

If we have a start state with a certain kind of benevolent God, the rest of the stuff flows from that through state change rules of some sort - and I don't find it terribly interesting what sorts of rules and processes are involved to get from that start state to the current one (or, at least, only to the extent that those rules and processes may imply more or less arbitrariness in the start state).

Similarly, we can instantiate in enough physical rules to get the "chance" universe you describe going, and its rules could get it to the current state either determinalistically or with some element of randomness. I guess I understand how you're using "chance" here... but I don't know that it's terribly useful. Why should "what humans can predict" be of any relevance philosophically? And if we're using it that way, couldn't we similarly describe God's actions as chance? I mean, surely humans (or angels) can't predict everything he's going to do. Chance seems like a pejorative when applied to God.. and to me it seems like a pejorative when applied to the operations of the universe (except where, again, that operation is actually random).

However, again, I don't think this difference is terribly important. I think I understand what you're getting at, I just see things very differently.

Yet, it is assumed to be true because "there must be a naturalistic origin to life".


I don't think you're phrasing this in a terribly fair way. Yes, many people assume there's a natural explanation for abiogenesis. This is partly because having another explanation introduces arbitrariness into the system. Say I'm a geologist and I discover Devil's Tower. It's really weird, but my inclination from the very start is that it was formed by similar processes to ones that have explained weird things in the past. Even if I can't postulate even a guess as to why it has those weird columns, I'm not crazy to guess that eventually we'll figure out an explanation that doesn't involve, say, new physical laws or aliens. (And it's certainly not helpful to say "maybe it was made in the flood").

Abiogenesis is a bigger problem and it's also one that's "lost to time" a bit. It almost certainly requires a mechanism we have yet to identify (or a mechanism someone has guessed at, but hasn't provided good details or evidence for). But, like Devil's Tower, there's no reason to expect that mechanism won't be identified - or that it will require significant changes to our understanding of the rest of science. Again, there's plausible ideas already floating around, and I think we'll probably recreate the process (though likely not with the same actual process) within the next 30 years or so.

I think you'll have to admit that God is a much better theory than "I don't know".


No... that, I think, is probably our strongest point of disagreement. I'm very much OK with "I don't know", and literally everything I believe has a bit of "I don't know" attached (kind of similar to how everything you believe in has a bit of God attached).

I'm not worshipping ignorance or something - knowing IS better than not knowing. But I'm also not scared of not knowing things - and I'm certainly not just going to pick something and believe in it because I don't like having some of my answer pages blank.

For you, is Scientology better than "I don't know"?

Edit:
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.


Also, thanks for using the big boy version of the Bible. I quite like the Bible artistically, but I can't stand some of the new translations (despite whatever benefits some parts may have in terms of clarity).

@shinyblurry

Fair enough - it sounds like you're certain in every practical sense, but you don't believe you have "absolute knowledge". That was really the main distinction I was trying to make. Certainly I agree that you can't reason in any meaningful way without writing off certain kinds of extreme possibilities.

Of course there is a fundamental dichotomy between chance and design.


I understand the contrast here, and I think I understand now what you're trying to get at better - I just don't think this contrast is fundamental to the question I'm interested in (which is different, I think, than the one you're interested in). To me the intermediary steps are fungible - it's the start states that are interesting to me, and to me they all require arbitrary stuff that I don't like, but that seem necessary.

I think this difference in focus may come down to our varying perceptions of those intermediary steps. For me, the general big bang model, ideas of how stars and planets coalesced, natural abiogenesis, and evolution are reasonably credible as they stand and I expect those theories to develop and become more credible. You see those things very differently. I think that naturally leads to a different focus.

God is also the simplest explanation for everything, which can account for absolutely everything we see, feel, or experience, and that is precisely why some people don't like it.


I agree with this as well - to an extent. Having a unique God makes for a simple explanation in general (although it gets a bit complicated in practice for how we ended up precisely "here"). For the general problem of "how did this all get here", your recipe is very simple if it starts with God. On the flip side, God is a very big thing to assume. I think a case can be made for belief in a general God on something like this basis. Though I don't personally find it a convincing case at this time, that could change.

Perhaps another question: for you personally, would you describe your situation as more like "God provided me with special evidence, and I reason that He must exist because of this evidence" or more like "God produced a change in me directly, such that I now believe (unmediated by your own reason)"? (Or, obviously, something in between or different altogether). I think this would clarify your situation for me.

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.


I apparently haven't been clear in what I'm trying to say.

The existence of "anything" isn't design or chance or anything like that - those are the wrong kinds of concepts for answering the fundamental question. Design and chance and other "ways to summarize operations" (see also: decay or evolution) can get moving once we've instantiated "something" - but to start with our options are "arbitrary", "arbitrary" or "more arbitrary". If there's always been an eternal God, that's arbitrary. If the universe is some cycle of foam and explosions then that's arbitrary.

Maybe a simpler example: the universe could have sprung into existence in 2011 at that current state. I can't imagine evidence to the contrary. What is the reason I don't believe that? Because it's more arbitrary than other possibilities. That's part of why someone might accept evolution; it seems very arbitrary that all these animals should just happen to exist - it requires less arbitrariness if somehow all of these creatures could have come from a smaller set of simple ones.

Similarly, having a God reduces the number of things we have to start with. All you need is one thing: God. Then, by his desires and actions, you get all the other stuff for free, without having to assume in more things. God is a better explanation than having all things start at their 2011 state, partially because it requires far fewer arbitrary assumptions (just one big one).

I'll also say that you're putting way too much stock in "chance". Science currently sees a certain amount of true randomness in the operation of physics, but the gross physical mechanisms involved in, for example, evolution are not precluded by a fully deterministic universe. The world (or a world very similar to ours) could be explained by an arbitrary start state and arbitrary deterministic rules without chance being involved at all. Again, I don't think "chance" is a terribly useful concept for this discussion.

And to be doubly clear, there is no fundamental dichotomy between "chance" and "design". Chance needn't exist for a God or Godless universe, and "design" (as a vague concept, not specific theory) seems to exist either way too (though it could be illusory). I believe that I design things - so as an explanation for "how things are", most people are going to invoke design as a mechanism either way.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.


I was using the term "possible" to mean "not absolutely impossible". I think perhaps you're using the word "certain" in a less absolute way.

For example, I'm certain about my phone number. I'm more certain that, for example, I have been alive for longer than a day. But I can't absolutely certain. We can imagine a universe that is intent on tricking me about this fact - and I have no way to rule out that universe based on my experience or logic.

Similarly, my choice of question for you wasn't random or intended to be silly. Imagine a universe with more than one powerful supernatural agent (I called one a demon), some of whom were intent on deceiving humans. Their actual motivations are completely inscrutable, but for whatever reason they take some joy in tricking you into believing in God.

I'm not saying this universe is in any way likely or that it should compete with your current understanding of the world. So to clarify: my question to you is "do you agree it's not absolutely impossible that is the case". If you're leaving your answer to this clarified question as "no", what possible evidence could you have to rule this situation out? What evidence or experience couldn't be falsified by a devious supernatural agent? What if they could mess with your very process of reason (and I see no reason why they couldn't - again just as hypothetical)?

(@shinyblurry)

Do you believe God can make Himself known in such a way as you could be certain about it?


Of course. A theoretical omnipotent God could obviously convince me that He exists. That's tautological - He could do anything. He could 100% perfectly convince me that I'm a helicopter - whether or not that's true (right now I don't think I'm a helicopter, but I certainly could be).

It's also quite possible that - devoid of the presence of God - I could become very convinced of His (or Her's, or Its) presence by a stroke, a trolling demon, an advanced machine that could rewrite things in my brain, a misconception/bias that I don't see, or even just a very vivid dream.

Going further, there could be a God who believes himself omnipotent - and uses that power to convince people to worship him. But unbeknownst to Him he's actually the child of a Sun rabbit, the rabbit in turn having been born in an explosion at a fireworks warehouse (which was itself made by the rabbit, created backwards in time). The rabbit doesn't interfere and allows God to conduct business in just the way you think he does; you see, the rabbit thinks all the ginger spirits in heaven look like delicious, bobbing carrots and he thus lets God carry on with his business.

Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?


That is a very odd question - it doesn't take a great imagination to come up with possibilities, once we depart the realm of "seems to be likely". Time could be an illusion - the universe could be completely static, arbitrarily existing in its current form throughout all eternity. Ahead of you (none of us exist... oops!) is a soap bubble that looks like whatever you're seeing right now - behind you is an endless velvet Elvis painting. To be very clear: I don't know this isn't the case (and even if God or mescaline made me 100% convinced that this was or wasn't the case, I still would have no actual way of knowing - I'd just have a brain that's been messed with and thought it knew things it didn't).

Anyways - I'll repeat my previous question. Do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts? This is a fairly simple question; I've answered your questions, and I don't think it's unfair for me to expect a yes or no answer.

I'll ask you the same question I ask messenger..how would you tell the difference between a random chance Universe and one that God designed? What test could you conduct to find out which one you were in? When you can come up with a test to determine that, then you can tell me that there is no evidence. Logically, if there is a God, the entire Universe is evidence.


There are infinite possibilities all perfectly compatible with my experience of the universe. But that doesn't mean that I can't take a stab at ordering those possibilities in some way. It makes sense to choose explanations that involve fewer and simpler arbitrary assumptions. This doesn't give you any guarantee you'll get anything right (and certainly not everything right) - but it's all anyone can possibly do (including you - you just, apparently, have a different set of inputs including some sort of personal revelation).

Isn't it possible that you are staring at something divinely ordered but don't realize it?


Of course it is. For your part, do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts?

This is parody done with an extremely light touch, really - and is amazingly inoffensive. There's not really any reason this music couldn't have come from a believing Mormon.

To underscore that point, it's not much different than stuff members have produced themselves (partially with the intent of demonstrating that they don't always take themselves completely seriously). For example, productions of "Saturday's Warrior" by various Mormon groups and units were extremely popular in the 70's and 80's, and the missionaries in it are at least as goofy as the ones in the BoM musical. I couldn't find a video of the stage production - but this song is normally performed by a chorus line of missionaries in sunglasses (again, in Mormon churches with approval by a bishop).

Even most devout/lame Mormons I know see the BoM musical as positive publicity that's surprisingly inoffensive (similar to South Park's Mormon bits, which generally were quite popular with Church members). The "official" church isn't exactly going to sanction it, but the position it has taken - something like "we hope people will come to us to get the real story" is pretty dang close.

Being loud isn't how you get heard - it's how you get marginalized and ignored.

To the extent that there are people "pulling the strings" (and Canadian politics is actually not terribly corrupt), those people are happiest when their critics behave like this.

Saying normla mode is easy is because it is normal mode.


Many people will only ever play it once. Those people have to play normal, and for many of those players normal sucks and they knew it was going to.

For someone like me, it meant that the first time I saw the content it was in fast forward mode (trying to escape the mindless, challenge-free boredom of normal mode), which ruined what might have been some more enjoyable content.

And it's ridiculous that I can't start a new character on Nightmare (just make him level 30 with no gear... whatever). This means I can't reasonably play with a friend who's behind me in levels (he's 30, I'm around 50) without doing another 10 hour slog. And I can't try another character without a 10 hour slog.

I don't want to do any slogs. Just let me play the fun parts of a game, please.

Also, they should have made "elective mode" either default or a little more noticeable (because the game is much worse without it).

The skill system means gear is the only way your character is actually different than others. It works, but it takes something away from the game. The way difficulty scales is really unsatisfying. It doesn't feel like your skills are tested; it feels more like your gear and stamina are being tested. Skills and item balance were not well tested before launch. I don't know how this was done so poorly by a company with so much experience.

It's a good game.. but not nearly as good as I expected, with very little innovation, and with a few really questionable decisions. I'm pretty much done with it.

The judge asks "If I let her go, what am I going to do with the rest of them?"

I don't know... maybe, look at the facts of the case, and decide on a course of action that will benefit the people involved and society?

If he made the right decision in this case, would that - horrifyingly - lead to him make the right decision in other cases?

How then should I punish him in either case?


Taking this a step further, why punish anyone for anything?

I mean, in a practical sense for us non-omnipotent types there's lots of valid, utility reasons to punish: deterrence, recompense (through fines or labor), rehabilitation/education, and mechanically preventing further crimes. Probably a few others.

The only one of these that could possibly be countenanced by an omnipotent being would be education.. but why should violence or pain be required for this - can't God accomplish this some other way (ie. isn't he omnipotent... or at least more powerful than the human methods for rehabilitation that function pretty well without eternal burning)? And don't any lessons you learn during the infinite burning seem a bit wasted if you're just going burn in Hell forever anyways?

"Justice" can be a utilitarian virtue, just like "not wasting money", or "properly sterilizing dental equipment". But I don't see how it's an eternal one that God needs to worry about. I don't see what need or virtue is served by God punishing anyone, especially when it flies in the face of "love", "mercy", "fairness", and other virtues or properties that seem a lot more valuable.

She has about the level of understanding I would expect from a bright 12 year old. If her parents are feeding her this, they have a "bright 12 year old"'s understanding of the financial system. About the same as Ron Paul.

Canada has debt because it spends more than it takes in. Doing so in recent years has been mostly a good decision - and generally it's hard to argue with Canadian fiscal and bank-regulatory policy given its recent performance. We've weathered the recession better than most other places (partly this is due to the our natural resources and industry mix, but not completely).

Fractional reserve banking has a complicated effect on the economy. It's not easy to fit this into a 5 minute talk, but it allows for beneficial ways of managing and growing the economy.

If you think banks are just stealing money, go start a bank or invest in one. You'll find that they're businesses like any other, and that Canadian banks are mostly well regulated, and mostly make their money in responsible ways. Banks are not magic, and individuals can leverage money in many of the same ways they do.

On the flip side, there's been tremendous misbehavior by American financial companies (most of these aren't best described as banks) in the last decade, supported by bad laws. Some people got very rich while the economy got screwed to Hell. This had nothing to do with the basic ideas of fractional reserve banking, and everything to do with naked dishonesty, regulatory capture, and plain old corruption.

Here's what I don't get in this argument... How does raising the income tax (taxing money taken home and spent on whatever you want) harm business investments and their economic benefits when any money spent on them are TAX DEDUCTIBLE? I would think that a higher income tax would encourage "some rich guy" to invest his money in his business rather than taking home the money and paying the higher tax.


To be clear: I'm not saying it's right (it's mostly not), I'm saying it's not self-evidently crazy. I.e. if you're going to argue against it, you should talk about why it's wrong, or - better yet - show empirical evidence against the idea. That would be a TED talk.

Not just uninteresting, but unbalanced. Sometimes straight-up wrong. And the cliche (Earth centered universe) he pulls out at the beginning is so sad that I don't even know what to say. He isn't busting some consensus and challenging some sacred cow: he's adding nothing to a debate that is ongoing and nuanced.

On the actual subject: there's lots of jobs that are difficult to create. If everyone in your neighborhood wants an iPhone, Bob just can't start making them in his garage. It requires a concentration of capital to begin this kind of production.

One possible source for that concentration is "some rich guy", and many businesses are indeed started that way. It's not crazy or wrong to say that over-taxing rich people could have economic harms through this kind of mechanism. It's a ridiculous false dichotomy to say that it's only the consumers that are the key to business development.

Overall: I agree with the dude that the tax system in the US should be more progressive, but you can't just hand-wave away the other side of an argument. That difference is part of what distinguishes "a speech at a political rally" from "a speech at TED".