Serious questions? And one for Kenny

[From Dick Robertson,991015.0807CDT]

Kenneth Kitzke Value Creation Systems wrote:

Kenny, here's one that I imagine might warm your heart. Have you seen the
article by Dr. David Foster "Proving God Exists (scientifically)" in Nov./Dec.99
"The Saturday Evening Post"? He is described as, "mathematician, sceintist, and
engineer" at Cambridge, England. His argument is referred to as, "Natural
Religion and the Argument from Design" arguing, among other things that, e.g.
why haemoglobin couldn't happen by chance--because the possibilities are 10
(-654) many magnitudes greater than the age of the universe.

He is now 91 but maybe you might still recruit him for CSGnet. What do you
think?

Best, Dick R.

[From Bruce Gregory (991015.1015 EDT)]

Dick Robertson,991015.0807CDT]

His argument is referred to
as, "Natural
Religion and the Argument from Design" arguing, among other
things that, e.g.
why hemoglobin couldn't happen by chance--because the
possibilities are 10
(-654) many magnitudes greater than the age of the universe.

I have used the same argument to support my contention that the winner
of the Mass lottery could not have happened by chance. Consider the
overwhelming odds against that particular person winning. Clearly divine
intervention must be involved. Since hemoglobin only needed to happen
once and lotteries are won every week, I contend that my example is much
more convincing.

Bruce Gregory

[From Kenny Kitzke (991015.1115 EDT)]

<Bruce Gregory (991015.1015 EDT)>

<I have used the same argument to support my contention that the winner

of the Mass lottery could not have happened by chance. Consider the

overwhelming odds against that particular person winning. Clearly divine

intervention must be involved. Since hemoglobin only needed to happen

once and lotteries are won every week, I contend that my example is much

more convincing.>

I assume you jest? There is no analogy here. Nothing convincing at all.
Seems like babble.

[From Bruce Nevin (991015.1117 EDT)]
Bruce Gregory (991015.1015 EDT)

···

At 10:19 AM 10/15/1999 -0400, Bruce Gregory wrote:

Dick Robertson,991015.0807CDT]

His argument is referred to as, "Natural
Religion and the Argument from Design" arguing, among other
things that, e.g.
why hemoglobin couldn't happen by chance--because the
possibilities are 10
(-654) many magnitudes greater than the age of the universe.

I have used the same argument to support my contention that the winner
of the Mass lottery could not have happened by chance. Consider the
overwhelming odds against that particular person winning. Clearly divine
intervention must be involved. Since hemoglobin only needed to happen
once and lotteries are won every week, I contend that my example is much
more convincing.

Alas, no, because it is essentially the same population every week, and the
non-winning part of the population is accessible to us. This is not so for
the non-winning alternatives to hemoglobin.

[From Rick Marken (991015.0830)]

Bruce Gregory (991015.1015 EDT) --

I have used the same argument to support my contention that
the winner of the Mass lottery could not have happened by
chance. Consider the overwhelming odds against that
particular person winning. Clearly divine intervention must
be involved.

Kenny Kitzke (991015.1115 EDT) --

I assume you jest? There is no analogy here. Nothing
convincing at all Seems like babble.

Boy, that was a close call!

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313

[From Kenny Kitzke (991015.1130EDT]

<Dick Robertson,991015.0807CDT>

<Kenny, here's one that I imagine might warm your heart. Have you seen the
article by Dr. David Foster "Proving God Exists (scientifically)" in
Nov./Dec.99
"The Saturday Evening Post"? He is described as, "mathematician, sceintist,
and
engineer" at Cambridge, England.

He is now 91 but maybe you might still recruit him for CSGNet. What do you
think?>

Thanks Dick. I am too darn busy to read it. PCT translated, there are other
things I want to do more. But, thanks for pointing it out as something I
might appreciate.

I think scientists have used science to convince themselves that what other
scientists claim is incorrect. Sort of what PCT scientists do concerning
behavioral psychologists and therapists.

Some scientists have used science to justify or develop a reference for a
supernatural being and even one that communicates with them. I am reasonably
aware of those arguments and find them plausible.

But, like everyone I believe, I have come to such high level perceptual
references in my own unique and autonomous way.

As far as recruiting him to CSGNet, I doubt it would add much value to his
life as he perceives his purpose. Besides, aren't I enough for the group
nature and purpose? If you want to invite him, go for it. I wonder if
he plays tennis at 91?

Kenny

What do you think?

[From Bruce Gregory (991015.1205 EDT)]

Bruce Nevin (991015.1117 EDT)

Alas, no, because it is essentially the same population every
week, and the
non-winning part of the population is accessible to us. This
is not so for
the non-winning alternatives to hemoglobin.

More germane, perhaps, is that we do not know the precursors to
hemoglobin. Lacking this information, any statement about the
probability of producing hemoglobin is virtually devoid of meaning. A
similar example is calculating the probability that intelligent life
exists elsewhere in the universe.

Bruce Gregory