Date sent: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 19:37:31 -0700 (PDT)

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

Toby: i read a little more on godel and still maintain he is not relevant to our discussion here, please tell me why you brought up a logicial/math guy when we already agreed strong determinism is viable?

In the frame of questions of God and Universe, Godel's Theory says that the inside observer can never completely know what he or she is observing, only an outside observer can know the system completely.

therefore there is somebody out there who created the U ? true?

OK, we need a clearer definition of purpose. For me purpose is directed activity. It can be hardwired, or not. Robots can be purposeful, if they have some conditional statements (if I sense this, then do that) in their programming.

This is the definition to use when we talking about things in my frame of reference. Remember, in my frame purpose does not require First Cause because there is no First Cause.

OK but you recognize that the purpose has to come from somewhere don't you?

> (From my point of view, this life purpose models the Catholic church's evolution through various heresies. The purpose of the Catholic church organization we know today was to survive heresy. The Church we experience is the "wing" of each heresy that survived.)

> No, the catholic church's objective is not to survive heresy it is to pass along the gospel. Heresies are merely side-shows, things that need clarification.

It's not the stated objective of the Catholic Church, and it's not the concious motive of most of its members, I agree wholeheartedly.

But look at the organization itself, not it's objectives, not what it stands for, but the organization.

do you mean the members who say they say are catholic. and represent the Church just like Osama says he is just a devout muslim? humble and peaceful, driven to violence by USA

One way to "model" (as in view) the Church organization is that heresies are mutations to the corpus of belief. When they come, the organization splits, and one side survives and the other side does not. The side that survives is the church we know today. The side that withers did not pass the survivability test.

you are so fixated on evolutionary thinking, of course you can view it that way; but what good does it do? you can model the church as an army; as a political institution, as the church evangelical, etc etc. why do you want to sidetrack to the process of ... that is it, since there is no purpose to anything all you can talk about is process, is that it.

I read the book you sent me on early heresies. (yeah, where is it?)

One image I got out of it was that the corpus of belief that is the Church today was severely challenged several times through the history of the Church. There were times when the heretical believers outnumbered the true believers, but time and time again, the Catholic organization outsurvived the heretics' organizations.

My point is: the one constant of the Church organization throughout the heresies (of old and of today) is survivability.

the chruch to its detriment in many ways and at many times has picked survival over truth, we see this today in the reluctance to condemn pols who support abortion actively, and the reluctancd to root out the pedophiles..

This state of "being the survivor" could be the product of directed choice from outside the system (First Cause and divine intervention), or the product of choices generated entirely within the system (organizational evolution). If the choices are made solely from within the system, then the key choosing issue is "life of the organization". In this sense, even organizational life is purposeful and directed (by my definition of purposeful), and survivability is the prime measure of success.

And, the fun part (from my point of view) is the process is ongoing and subject to prediction. When controversy erupts (birth control, gays, Mass in common tongue) which proposition will survive? My prediction is the one that controls the most survivable chunk of the organization.

well, the only promise is that the chruch will survive, here's a tough one to explain: of all the popes who debauched, lied, expolited etc. NONE made any statements from the seat of Peter which has had to be retracted. Which supports the idea that there is truth protection when things are spoken from the seat.

also, as to survivablility, well lets say that politics unfortunately are often a big part, but not always. and not in the big matters

>> First Cause is not in my world view.

> I really need clarification here, describe a world without first cause. How did we get here. I can accept that you don't know and don't care, but not that you think that creation needed no creator. this is facinating idea, tell me more

I read a quote about some French logician saying something like, "If the universe needs a creator, then the creator needs a universe to exist in, too." In other words, if you need a creator, you need an endless succession of creators and universes for creators to exist in. I agree with this concept.

This means, to me, that the question is irrelevant, and saying there is a creator who cares about humans is anthropomorphizing.

fair enough, but you agree there is a cause outside the hits U, and the froggie is cute, but it has to "start somewhere" -- where first cause, he just playing mind games with you (and his other desciples) there has to be a creator that started it all

Your viewpoint that science is just an endless cycle of discoveries leading to more questions misses a vital point: the mountain of discoveries is getting visibly taller. Just within my lifetime (and yours) we have discovered so much! And what we have discovered has made such a difference!

yes that is interesting, especially since the promise that knowledge would help arose but life didn't change for several centuries, then science (technology kicked in) now the techno scientists tell us look how much better its getting, then tell us were ruining the earth. they talk out of both sides of their mouth, because they promise -- if we are in charge we can give you advancement without negative externalities, so you believe that bs? back to lenin and stalin with you if you do,. the revolution eats its young.

Black holes may not make a difference on Earth, but the logic that described Black Holes is the same logic that created lasers and transistors, and they sure do!

very good, the earth is not a stand alone venture after all is it. further, perhaps god lets us see these things to admire his creation and to improve our lives with lasers, would happen on the back of turtle with a painted sky.

Modern concepts of health spring directly from the concept of DNA which springs directly from the concept of Evolution.

wrong

you have to document, that there is much science that relies upon anatomy and bacteriology etc, ironically it is FUNCTIONALITY PURPOSE that leads to the advancemnts, not apes to men. try again. this evolution is a god to you.

One way to see how that mountain has grown is the Science News I've pointed out to you. Have you had a chance to look at that yet?

NO where is it.

are you a one source guy on this ?

The parts Roger has written are in italics. The parts Toby has written are in normal text.

01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36