=Doesn't matter, Kevin. Since I'm as good an authority on what is good
=as you are, my definition of what preserves good into the eternities
=is as good as yours.

Actually, I didn't say you were _as good_ an authority on what
good is than I was. What I said was what you quoted above, "clearly I
am _no more_ of an authority on what good is than you are."

kvnsmnsn@hotmail.com (Kevin Simonson) wrote in message
news:<6dfb1603.0311151755.752640ce@posting.google.com>...

=> but it sounds like you're say-
=> ing that your plan to preserve some good into the eternities _might_
=> work, and as long as I can't prove that it won't work then you satisfy
=> my definition of God.
=
=You said within physical law -- but then you went on a wild speculaton
=spree, ignoring known physical laws (like entropy), and all the time
=justifying your new mythology with excuses about it could be possible.
=
=If you stick within known physical laws, I meet your definition of
=god. If you are going to insist on the right to invent new physical
=laws with the excuse that it could be possible, then two can play that
=game, and I get to invent new physical laws -- on the grounds that it
=could be possible.
=
=So, Kevin, decide what set of rules you are playing by, and then stick
=with them.

The physical laws regarding entropy state that in a closed system
entropy will inevitably increase until it reaches its maximum value.
The key words there are _in a closed system_. We frankly don't know
enough about our universe to tell whether it's a closed system or not.

How do universes come into existence? We don't know that. Is it
possible that universes come into existence on a (cosmic) regular ba-
sis, and is it possible that intelligent life forms can find ways to
create passageways between two such universes? Again, we don't know
that.

Duwayne, sticking within known physical laws, you don't meet my
definition of God.

You proposed sending a good message out in the form of photons
that you said would benefit intelligent life forms from other uni-
verses coming to visit our own; but I pointed out that that message
would fade with time, and asked if it was even _possible_ for those
life forms to read a message from photons when those photons had
spread out so much that the minimum distance between any two photons
would be a kilometer or more, as would surely happen eventually as the
photons from your broadcast spread out over the universe. You didn't
respond to that question.

You also proposed encoding that good message on a diamond, and
sending that diamond sailing through the universe, justifying that act
with the statement that "diamonds are forever." Unfortunately, they
aren't. The best experts on the subject say that _no_ molecular com-
pound is stable enough to last forever, and given enough time will de-
volve into more basic elements.

So, though your proposed actions would preserve a good message
_very long_ into the future (assuming there are intelligent life forms
left to read it), they still wouldn't preserve anything good eternal-
ly, and therefore you haven't demonstrated to me persuasively that you
have preserved anything good into the eternities, and therefore my de-
finition of God does not include you.

=> I'm certainly not going to start sending you my
=> tithing until I have some reason to believe that your plan _will_
=> work, some reason to believe that your plan _will_ preserve some good
=> things into the eternities.
=
=I can prove I can preserve some good into the eternities as well as
=your prophets -- and you send your money to them.

Prove away; I'm listening.

=> Even if humans were all to die out, intelligent
=> life forms from other universes were sure (you said) to journey to our
=> universe on a continual basis, and they would read those photons and
=> get some sort of benefit from it.
=
=No. I didn't use the word "sure." And I don't need to. You admitted
=(after failing to define the word "good") that I'm as much an
=authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are. And so I can
=define the archiving of history as good, and I can archive it into the
=eternities -- thus I'm god by your silly definition.
=
=Indeed, I can define the simple fact that history has been archived as
="good," independent of whether or not anyone reads it. And you can't
=object, because you already admitted that I'm as much an expert on the
=meaning of "good" as you are.
=
=You lost this argument long, long ago when you refused to define your
=definition of words, and capitulated by admitting that I'm as much an
=authority on the meaning of the word "good" as you are.
=
=So, I'm god by your silly definitition.

Duwayne, see the other post I'm making today about what I think
"good" means, and whether I think your definition is authoritative.

---Kevin Simonson

"Maybe it started as a dream, but doesn't everything?"
from _James and the Giant Peach_

duwaynea@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote in message
news:<a42139e3.0310171014.7e8f02df@posting.google.com>...

=So, Kevin, decide what set of rules you are playing by, and then stick
=with them.

Duwayne, I'm working on putting together a response to this ar-
ticle, but I probably won't have it done by Monday 17 November. If I
understand Google Groups threads right, that's the deadline past
which the "Post a follow-up to this message" field vanishes. So I'm
posting this brief article as a follow-up as a sort of place keeper.
When I'm finally ready to post my response to your article I'll post
it as a follow-up to _this_ brief article, and we'll go from there.