This re-instated what passes for faith in humanity

[GenericKen]

I would think the best kind of religious person would be one that can openly question his faith, yet still truly believe in it.
[right][snapback]98465[/snapback][/right]

Doesn't that kind of inheirantly subvert the faith to scientific testing?

I can openly question my faith and still believe in it, but my belief doesn't stem from my deductive questioning. The trial of belief is important to faith, but it is not essential; the scientific method is not essential to goodness.

So I gotta disagree with you; the best kind of any person isn't neccessarily the person who is most scientific about his beliefs.

[LemmingofGlory]

Will... to... resist... butting... in... failing...

A glance at the example reveals that {. . ., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .} seems to begin with negative infinity and end in infinity; yet a set infinite in both directions has no beginning and no end (if we both share this meaning of “infinity”), no first or last.

A set is an unordered collection of elements. To say that a set "begins" with something is contrary to the very notion of a set. To say that a set even has direction is also so much nonsense. Consider: { (x,y) | x^2 + y^2 = 1 }.

And, obiter dicta, isn't “axiom of choice” and the phrase “countably infinite” indulgences in advanced set theory?

Countability and cardinality are topics of introductory set theory. The axiom of choice is somewhat more advanced.

If one supposed an ordered set (analogous to possessing cause - an ordering principle), shouldn't one then expect a definitive first element?

A set is unordered. A listing of them may have some "order" to it, but that's your doing. A relation may be able to help you put the elements "in order" somehow. For example, the set { x | 0 <= x <= 1 } with the relation < (or >) can tell you, for any two distinct elements, whether one is larger/smaller.

The question of: “If a set contains an infinite number of integers, mustn't in contain every quantity of integers smaller than the infinite? In other words, if a set of 100 items were examined, mustn't it also be found to contain 99 items, and 98 items, and so on? If a set of 100 items did not contain a first item, how could it contain a second?” is the original example, given explicitly under the premise that “everything... has a cause,” and further prefaced by this question of mine:

Integers can be negative. So, no.

If one accepts uncaused effects, then isn’t it beyond any field of study to find the cause of those effects?

I think that your attempt to link causality and listings of elements in a set contained more words than necessary. It often seemed that you were struggling to find the words, so you used a whole lot of them. The concept seems sufficiently simple that I think a truly monstrous simplification exists (e.g. "I believe that effect has a cause, in much the same way that any listing of a set has a first element."), so if you could make a post like that, it'd be neat to read it.

-Lemmy

[--Pete]

Hi,

A set is an unordered collection of elements.[right][snapback]98503[/snapback][/right]

Technically, you are right, and we've been guilty of sloppy jargon. However, from context, it should appear that what we are really talking about is a set and an operator on that set that is antisymmetric, transitive and global (I think that that's all that's necessary). It's been too long since I've played with these concepts, so I can no longer remember all the correct jargon, and have no idea whether such a construct is a ring, a field, a groupoid, a semi-group, etc. I do know that it is not a group, because groups and algebras are essential to physics.

--Pete

[wakim]

A set is an unordered collection of elements. To say that a set "begins" with something is contrary to the very notion of a set. To say that a set even has direction is also so much nonsense.
[right][snapback]98503[/snapback][/right]

A brief browsing through a couple mathematical text books at hand (granted incomplete in reference to set theory), a couple of dictionaries, and a brief Google search yield no definition of “set” that matches yours, in that a set necessarily be “an unordered collection of elements.” The R-H Dictionary, to offer a typical example, defines a mathematical set to be “[A] collection of objects or elements classed together.”

The “directions” I was referring to in the example {. . ., -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, . . .} was from smaller to larger – I presume that you’ll grant that this set does indeed possess some elements that are smaller than others, and that it is ordered from left to right to display that. Further, isn’t it an essential property of infinity that it be infinite in regards to either increase or decrease of the property it describes? and thus that infinity must possess direction? For even if something is infinitely the same, how can it be so except in regard to an increase of time?

A set is unordered. A listing of them may have some "order" to it, but that's your doing.
[right][snapback]98503[/snapback][/right]

“If” begins a conditional sentence, as in my writing “ If one supposed an ordered set...”. If one doesn’t grant the premise supposed by the “if” then there no point to arguing against the “then”, as, in a conditional sentence, the “then” is predicated upon the “if”.

If I would accept your assertion that a set may only have “order,” not order, then I wonder how I would know whether a set is actually more than just a “set”? In other words, why is the classifying of elements into a group and calling it a set more than just “your doing”? In yet other words: The organization of elements into any given set is done to reflect some general classifying principle (ex. a group of all integers, a group of all flatware, a group of some interval, etc.). How do I know that the very act of organizing items into collections called sets isn’t equally as arbitrary as you claim the order of the elements in those sets must be? If the choice of items to include or exclude from a set is also arbitrary (thus the set has “organization”, not organization), then what one has isn’t a set, it is a “set”- a thing that is arbitrary and therefore reflective of nothing more than “your doing.” If a “set” is nothing more than “your doing,” then how can any conclusion be expected to be drawn from it that is other than only a reflection of “your doing”, including, therefore, the assertion that it is unordered?

The question of: “If a set contains an infinite number of integers, mustn't in contain every quantity of integers smaller than the infinite? In other words, if a set of 100 items were examined, mustn't it also be found to contain 99 items, and 98 items, and so on? If a set of 100 items did not contain a first item, how could it contain a second?”...

Integers can be negative. So, no.
[right][snapback]98503[/snapback][/right]

The question is about quantity, not value; how do negative integers pertain? In other words, doesn’t the set {100, 101, ...} contain elements that, if one were to enumerate them, would form the set {1,2,3,...}? just as the set {..., -101, -100} likewise would? or any similar set? Is it possible for a set that contains 100 elements, regardless of what the elements are, to not also contain 99 elements, 98, and so on? If I construe correctly your objection it would seem to rest on the claim that a set may contain a negative quantity of elements.

The concept seems sufficiently simple that I think a truly monstrous simplification exists (e.g. "I believe that effect has a cause, in much the same way that any listing of a set has a first element."), so if you could make a post like that, it'd be neat to read it.
[right][snapback]98503[/snapback][/right]

It appears from the summary that you offer of my argument that even given the daunting length that my previous post grew to, to my regret it failed to cogently convey my intent. While your proffered summary, that "I believe that effect has a cause, in much the same way that any listing of a set has a first element,” may be, and I have no cause to doubt you, a “neat” sentence to read, it isn’t my argument.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Just a small clarification:

Is it possible for a set that contains 100 elements, regardless of what the elements are, to not also contain 99 elements, 98, and so on?[right][snapback]98527[/snapback][/right]

The confusion here is that you are failing to distinguish between a set and sub-sets of that set. If a set is defined so that it contains 100 specific elements, then it contains those 100, no more, no less. There does exist a sub-set of that set (indeed, 100 subsets) which only contains 99 of those elements. But the sub-sets are not the original set.

As important as well defined concepts and semantics are to a reasoned mathematical argument, this point is still a quibble. Rephrased as, "Is it possible for someone to have 100 elements, regardless of what the elements are, to not also have 99 elements, 98, and so on?", your question has merit. Where it fails is not within itself, but in trying to extend such arguments to the infinite (either mathematical or philosophical).

--Pete

[Jester]

Further, isn’t it an essential property of infinity that it be infinite in regards to either increase or decrease of the property it describes? and thus that infinity must possess direction? For even if something is infinitely the same, how can it be so except in&nbsp; regard to an increase of time?&nbsp;

No. Infinite sets are neither increasing nor decreasing, temporally speaking. There is no "direction".

The set of integers can be ordered any way you like, including in ways that indicate a different "direction" than counting them smallest to largest or vice versa. You could do {..., -3, 3, -2, 2, -1, 1}, which would indicate that the set converges at one, or any other number you chose. This is no more real than any other ordering, all are equally arbitrary. So, any argument that relies on their order is equally arbitrary.

Now, causality, at least within our temporal context, *does* mean order, which is helpful. But even then, that does not set any particular boundary. The causal chain could still extend infinitely in both directions. It could loop back on itself, even, where the "last" cause links with the "first" effect, and just spins around again and again. The whole notion of causality could break down once we leave our temporal context, and we have no evidence that time is anything but a property of *our* universe. What the situation of our universe is to any outside entities (if they exist at all) is beyond our knowing.

Or maybe there is a first cause. I can't disprove it. The key here is that we don't know. There is no philosophical argument (that I've heard) that demonstrates that any of these arguments is impossible. So long as none are disproven, and there is no evidence (maybe permanently) the only logical course is to profess our ignorance.

And, of course, even if there was a first cause, that says nothing about what it is. So it makes no sense whatsoever as an argument for Intelligent Design.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

It could loop back on itself, even, where the "last" cause links with the "first" effect, and just spins around again and again. The whole notion of causality could break down once we leave our temporal context, and we have no evidence that time is anything but a property of *our* universe. What the situation of our universe is to any outside entities (if they exist at all) is beyond our knowing.

Or maybe there is a first cause. I can't disprove it. The key here is that we don't know. There is no philosophical argument (that I've heard) that demonstrates that any of these arguments is impossible. So long as none are disproven, and there is no evidence (maybe permanently) the only logical course is to profess our ignorance.

And, of course, even if there was a first cause, that says nothing about what it is. So it makes no sense whatsoever as an argument for Intelligent Design.

-Jester
[right][snapback]98536[/snapback][/right]

About your reality chain loop: Wouldn't the chain/loop be when the last effect links back to the first cause? Your order seems inverted to me.

"The only logical course is to profess ignorance?" I disagree. A logical course is to profess ignorance. Another is to ask hypothetical questions in the attempts to find an answer, or part of an answer. PS: The "only logical answer" structure is well used by the ICR. I don't expect you'd want to associate your comments on this topic to their reasoning by use of a similar fallacy.

"No sense whatsoever?" I'll offer that you overstate your case. If there is a first cause, it may be a comprehensible (to our puny human brains) agency, or it may not. Within the subset of comprehensible agencies are various gods, which include God, and other ultimate causation events or conditions. Of course, as soon as one assumes God to be comprehensible, (to what degree by our puny human brains?) the door is opened to "how much of the elephant can the blind man describe?" This takes us back to of philosophy, and metaphysics. If ID does not belong in the science class, I'll offer that in an appeal to rigor Darwin and Evolution need to be presented warts and all. That it is taught as Truth is mildly fraudulent, though not enough to throw it out, nor to write it off as junk science. It's limitations need to be presented "up front."

Then again, quite a bit of history taught in our schools is more story than history. As history is not a hard science -- since it is only reproducible by those unwilling to learn from it ;) -- it has little place in this thread's conversation other than as a scholastic subject whose "teaching" is flawed.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...as a scholastic subject whose "teaching" is flawed...
[right][snapback]98539[/snapback][/right]

Funny how "truth" is such a moving target over the centuries. Other than the basics in other disciplines, mathematics is about the only stable "truth" in most curriculum.

[LemmingofGlory]

The R-H Dictionary, to offer a&nbsp; typical example, defines a mathematical set to be “[A] collection of objects or elements classed together.”

Mathematicians say that "set" is a notion without (rigorous) definition. It's a "primitive" concept; definitions of it end up being recursive in nature.

Further, isn’t it an essential property of infinity that it be infinite in regards to either increase or decrease of the property it describes? and thus that infinity must possess direction? For even if something is infinitely the same, how can it be so except in&nbsp; regard to an increase of time?&nbsp;

I'm going to say no. Increase, decrease, and constant aren't the only behaviors that exist. And if you want to talk about behavior, that's getting into the realm of sequences.

“If” begins a conditional sentence, as&nbsp; in my writing “ If one supposed an ordered set...”. If one doesn’t grant the premise supposed by the “if” then there no point to arguing against the “then”, as, in a conditional sentence, the “then” is&nbsp; predicated upon the “if”.

I wasn't disagreeing with your implication, but rather with your use of jargon. When I see "set" used as loosely as it's been used in this thread, I have this filthy urge to see it used more clearly. I know, it's my problem but so help me if I keep my mouth shut, I'll eat twelve jars of olives until I stop thinking about it.

If I would accept your assertion that a set may only have “order,” not order, then I wonder how I would&nbsp; know whether a set is actually more than just a “set”? In other words, why is the classifying of elements into a group and calling it&nbsp; a&nbsp; set more than just “your doing”? In yet other words: The&nbsp; organization of elements into any given set is done to reflect some general classifying principle (ex. a group of all integers, a group of all flatware, a group of some interval,&nbsp; etc.). How do I know that the very act of organizing&nbsp; items into collections called sets isn’t equally as arbitrary as you claim the order of the elements in those sets must be? If the choice of items to include or exclude from a set is also arbitrary (thus the set has “organization”, not organization), then what one has isn’t a set, it is a “set”- a thing&nbsp; that is arbitrary and therefore reflective of nothing more than “your doing.” If a “set” is nothing more than “your doing,” then how can any conclusion be expected to be drawn from it that is other than only a reflection of&nbsp; “your doing”, including, therefore, the assertion that it is unordered?

I think your philosophical tangent here is some objection to the notion of something being arbitrary... but I don't see any benefit to me reading it when it looks like one of Doc's windy episodes.

The question is about quantity, not value; how do negative integers pertain? In other words, doesn’t the set {100, 101, ...} contain elements that, if one were to enumerate them, would form the set&nbsp; {1,2,3,...}? just as the set {..., -101, -100} likewise would? or any similar set? Is it possible for a set that contains 100 elements, regardless of what the elements are, to not also contain 99 elements, 98, and so on? If I construe correctly your objection it would seem to rest on the claim that a set may contain a negative quantity of elements.

The last sentence was all you needed. Honestly, I don't know what the rest of that is all about.

While your proffered summary, that "I believe that effect has a cause, in much the same way that any listing of a set has a first element,” may be, and I have no cause to doubt you, a “neat” sentence to read, it isn’t my argument.

At the same time, you must admit that it would be absolutely silly for me to ask you to provide a more concise presentation of your argument if I was able to accurately summarize it in a single sentence. For were it possible to do that, I would not desire a concise statement -- I would already have it! -- so surely I would not need another.

Given that, rather than replying as you did it'd be quite to your advantage to admit that I managed to offend you and either demand a duel at dawn or, equally satisfying (to me, naturally), explain why you still persist in carrying an abundance of words with which you hunt paragraphs to extinction.

-Lemmy

[Jester]

About your reality chain loop:&nbsp; Wouldn't the chain/loop be when the last effect links back to the first cause?&nbsp; Your order seems inverted to me.

Well, since a loop would mean that every effect is a cause and every cause an effect, it doesn't really matter. But, yes, your way is more comprehensible.

"The only logical course is to profess ignorance?"&nbsp; I disagree.

Well, clearly, I don't. You can ask hypothetical questions until you're blue in the face, but if they don't end up anywhere, you have to come to a conclusion from no evidence. You should admit that there is no way of deciding amongst the possibilities. Anything else is a hunch, at best.

"No sense whatsoever?"&nbsp; I'll offer that you overstate your case.&nbsp; If there is a first cause, it may be a comprehensible (to our puny human brains) agency, or it may not.

Yes. And we have no evidence at all for either case. Indeed, it seems likely that such information is perpetually beyond our grasp. All sorts of complete garbage is comprehensible to our puny human brains. Like astrology, dianetics, or voodoo. That doesn't mean the smallest thing in terms of what actually *is*. Drawing any conclusion about ID from an argument about first causes is pure speculation, or, less gently, complete bull.

If ID does not belong in the science class, I'll&nbsp; offer that in an appeal to rigor Darwin and Evolution need to be presented warts and all.&nbsp; That it is taught as Truth is mildly fraudulent, though not enough to throw it out, nor to write it off as junk science.&nbsp; It's limitations need to be presented "up front."

Emphasize that *all* scientific knowledge is theory, and that we must be open to contrary evidence or superior explanations. That *anything* in science class is taught as capital-T-Truth is "mildly fraudulent". Sure, point out where our evidence is lacking, once students get to a high enough level to understand how that fits in with the broad scope of the discipline. But do not pointlessly malign evolution just because it is theologically unpopular. It should be subjected to no more rigorous standards than any other scientific topic. (Now, what *that* standard might be is a completely different discussion)

What limitations should we explain?

-Jester

[whyBish]

On mutation.

Mutation as a form of evolving or advancement has been proven false. Mutation is a lack of genes...
[right][snapback]97885[/snapback][/right]

???

I think you need to do a bit more reading. It seems that you are equating mutation with a "deletive mutation". But there are also insertive and (something meaning replacement) mutations, as well as incorrect cell replication resulting in duplicate or missing chromosomes (e.g. downs syndrome)


Re mutation & evolution, last I heard it had shown that mutation rate has an upper bound above which evolution wouldn't happen. (But with no citation, feel free to ignore me :P ) which may be what you were thinking of??

[whyBish]

A mutation is a defect, while something good happening is something else entirely. When you gain something, it evolves, but it is not a mutation.

I hope I did a somewhat reasosnable job of trying to explain this.
[right][snapback]97903[/snapback][/right]

Well that makes things a lot clearer... you have been reading creationist literature. Creationists believe that the world was made perfect, and so the thought that a mutation can make something better (than gods perfect starting point) is abhorrent to them.

[whyBish]

There does exist a sub-set of that set (indeed, 100 subsets) which only contains 99 of those elements.&nbsp; But the sub-sets are not the original set.
--Pete
[right][snapback]98533[/snapback][/right]

If we are being completely pedantic as others here wish to be, then shouldn't that be 100 *non-identical* subsets?
...and if that original set contained items within it that were identical, then we don't get 100 non-identical subsets either.
-- edit Scratch that thought, you said 'specific'. Does my zero added value post, now become a value subtracted post?

[wakim]

A famed physicist finishes his lecture on cosmology and opens himself to questions from the floor. An old Hindu woman in a sari stands up in the audience and is recognized by the speaker.

She begins; “I understand what you are saying about the structure of the universe and all that, but I must tell you, you are quite wrong. For, you see, the Earth isn’t held in place by gravitational forces and such, but rather it rests upon the back of a giant elephant.”

The physicist nods to himself slightly and asks, “And pray tell me, what supports the elephant?”

The woman isn’t put off her stride in the least and immediately replies, “Why, the elephant stands on the back of a giant turtle.”

The physicist smiles soothingly and says, “Yes, I see. And what, then, does the turtle stand on?”

The Hindu woman pauses to reflect a moment, then looks up with a wide smile and says, “Well, I suppose it must be turtles all the way down!”

[GenericKen]

[right][snapback]98584[/snapback][/right]

When did this story get a hindu woman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

[kandrathe]

Well that makes things a lot clearer... you have been reading creationist literature.&nbsp; Creationists believe that the world was made perfect, and so the thought that a mutation&nbsp; can make something better (than gods perfect starting point) is abhorrent to them.
[right][snapback]98563[/snapback][/right]

That's a bit of an overgeneralization on creationists, no?

For example, here is the Vatican stand on certain creation points -- Adam, Eve, and Evolution - Catholic Answers. But, I'm sure there are fundamentalists who have a more rigid view, as well some sects with much more permissive views.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, since a loop would mean that every effect is a cause and every cause an effect, it doesn't really matter. But, yes, your way is more comprehensible.
Well, clearly, I don't. You can ask hypothetical questions until you're blue in the face, but if they don't end up anywhere, you have to come to a conclusion from no evidence. You should admit that there is no way of deciding amongst the possibilities. Anything else is a hunch, at best.
Yes. And we have no evidence at all for either case. Indeed, it seems likely that such information is perpetually beyond our grasp. All sorts of complete garbage is comprehensible to our puny human brains. Like astrology, dianetics, or voodoo. That doesn't mean the smallest thing in terms of what actually *is*. Drawing any conclusion about ID from an argument about first causes is pure speculation, or, less gently, complete bull.
Emphasize that *all* scientific knowledge is theory, and that we must be open to contrary evidence or superior explanations. That *anything* in science class is taught as capital-T-Truth is "mildly fraudulent". Sure, point out where our evidence is lacking, once students get to a high enough level to understand how that fits in with the broad scope of the discipline. But do not pointlessly malign evolution just because it is theologically unpopular. It should be subjected to no more rigorous standards than any other scientific topic. (Now, what *that* standard might be is a completely different discussion)

What limitations should we explain?

-Jester
[right][snapback]98555[/snapback][/right]

Our puny human brains went from "knowing of" spontaneous generation of frogs from mud to understanding reproduction in frogs. Time is a variable in understanding. In time, we may even understand God. Or we may not. (We is used collectively in this case, to represent the general set of humans with reasonably well functioning brains.)

The positing of a hypothesis I noted above was not the generation of infinite hypothetical questions, but rather a step zero in the investigation of "what is it and how it works." A partial answer is an answer, and often meets the good enough standard. The Final and Complete answer is necessary in . . . what fields? Partial answers make up the bulk of what we (see above for who "we" are) know.

What we know about everything is, for my money, best summarized by Bill Bryson :) in "A Short History of Everything."

Occhi

[wakim]

When did this story get a hindu woman?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down
[right][snapback]98587[/snapback][/right]

From the link to Wikipedia that you provide, reading the last paragraph in the first section:


"A version of the story also appears in Clifford Geertz's, 'Thick Description: Towards an Interpretive Theory of Culture,' in his 1973 book The Interpretation of Culture, with the scientist and old woman replaced by an Englishman and an Indian respectively. This version may be a reference to various Hindu beliefs, including the myth that Vishnu's second avatar was Kurma, a tortoise on whose back the Mandara mountain rested, or that the tortoise Chukwa supports the elephant Maha-pudma who upholds the world."

[--Pete]

Hi,

Not in reply to any particular post, but just for clarification.

Often in arguments involving evolution (of the universe, of life, etc.) the opponents of the theory cite something along the lines of "probability that so-and-so happened by chance (or, often by 'blind chance')". There are three problems with this argument. The first is that it implies that *anything* could happen, when, indeed, the number of things that could happen are limited by various properties and conservation principles. This greatly reduces the potential outcomes, sometimes to just one.

The second problem is that these opponents are often totally ignorant of probability. An event having a low probability of happening on one trial may still have a high probability of happening if sufficient trials are conducted. Think of a lottery, where each individual's chance of winning is small, but the likelihood of *someone* winning (eventually) is nearly one.

The third problem that this argument has is that it inverts the cause and effect. It goes from something like "what is the probability that Earth would be exactly at the right distance from the Sun and have exactly the right ellipticity to support life" to "therefor something must have caused it". That's like saying that the winner of a lottery must have cheated because the odds of winning were so low. Instead, the better way to look at the situation is to consider all the solar systems in the universe and ask what is the probability of at least one having the necessary requirements for life.


All of this is related to the Anthropic principle which, while debatable, at least starts from the observable (we are, after all, here).

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Our puny human brains went from "knowing of" spontaneous generation of frogs from mud to understanding reproduction in frogs.&nbsp; Time is a variable in understanding.&nbsp; In time, we may even understand God.&nbsp; Or we may not...
[right][snapback]98592[/snapback][/right]

Most of the planet cannot comprehend t=0 during the Big Bang, so contemplating t=-1 is philosophical and probably unknowable. And, from a Judeo/IslamoChristian theological POV, unimportant. God is not flesh and bone, and does not get hungry. So often (and here too) the GOD discussion is suffused with anthropomorphisms which we humans resort to even in science when we fail to comprehend.

Addressing the problem from what I'm familiar with, the Christian theological POV one needs only examine Christ, who said he was the son of God. C.S.Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity" that examining that one statement a person needs to conclude either he is who he says he is, is insane, or lying. Christians believe that Christ is who he says he is, and therefore not only does God exist, but an uncomprehensible trinity relationship exists.

For science, I think that even if we discover and can replicate the process of initial life from nucleic acid enriched goo to the initial simple cell, it would not disuade Creationists from the belief in a Creator force that initiated the process, or brought about the right set of circumstances for the process to initiate. So, of course Creationists are going to look for design complexity in their observations of the natural world which indicate to them the validity of their philosophical beliefs.

The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it?

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.
The argument goes like this:
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."
Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

I am a person who enjoys the diversity in beliefs, and I see no reason to poke holes into anyones philosophical bubbles. The only danger, as I pointed out above, is in mixing science and non-science philosophy. For me personally, I find that Darwin was partially right. Natural selection is an engine for evolution, but probably not as important as plate tectonics, ice ages, catastrophic weather, or asteroid and meteor impacts. What is amazing to me is that throughout all world history, how flexible, adaptable and persistent life has become on our planet and how the earth heals itself from catastrophe to emerge age after replendent age. As an earthling I may be biased, but the Earth is so beautiful in the macroscopic, microscopic, and even in the 4th dimension. When we look at a field of flowers, the scientist in us might see it as a flamboyant orgy of sex organs yearning for fertilization, but the poet in us might contemplate the dances of gods and goddesses.