In school I only got as far as Algebra II and Geometry, and that's pretty much the extent of my familiarity with mathematics. Yet you claim to have a mathematical proof "demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity". whew! I'm sorry but that's bit hard to swallow. Intelligence, as far as I know, is just an accident of evolution. Even if I accept the idea that of all the billions of planets in the universe, intelligence had to evolve on one of them, that doesn't guarantee that it will survive for very long without exterminating itself (look at the news; we seem to be doing a damn good job of it!), let alone evolve into some "immortal human-mind computer". I'm afraid to ask for the logical steps in this idea, because you'll probably tell me to read one of these long-winded papers and I'll get buried in mathematics.Hi, Advocatus. For the details of this mathematical theorem, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".
Smart kid, Lausten, she just probably doesn't have the concept of rhyming down, yet. I didn't at age 4. But, James, this statement for example: "... the cosmological singularity consists of a three-aspect structure: the final singularity (i.e., the Omega Point), the all-presents singularity (which exists at the boundary of the multiverse), and the initial singularity (i.e., the beginning of the Big Bang). These three distinct aspects which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse. Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions." Really? In regular person English, you are saying that since somebody came up with a concept of a three part "cosmological singularity", and since Christianity has a 3 in one deity, Christianity, is therefore the correct religion amongst all of mankind's religions. You can dress crap up in an extremely erudite looking and scholastically formatted apparel, but it continues to be, dressed-up crap. I realize that I am sounding harsh, but if you have convinced yourself of all this, take a break, do something useful (or fun) with your formidable intelligence.Humans can discover physical laws, but they are not responsible for them. In classical relativistic cosmology, the Initial Singularity and the Final Singularity are permanently separate and distinct singularities. But in quantum relativistic cosmology, the Initial and the Final Singularities are connected by a third singularity: the All-Presents Singularity, since all sizes of universes are obtained in the multiverse, which means that there are a class of universes which don't expand out from the Big Bang singularity at all, but remain as a singularity. These three distinct aspects to which perform different physical functions in bringing about and sustaining existence are actually one singularity which connects the entirety of the multiverse: the Cosmological Singularity, of which consists eternally of three hypostases in a homoousian triune, i.e., three distinct entities of the same substance (ousia). Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the Cosmological Singularity within the Omega Point cosmology, which is deselective of all other major religions. And the Cosmological Singularity has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions. For more on the inherently triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: "The Trinity of God", pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread. Wow. I guess all of the other trinity-god religions throughout history, were selected and then de-selected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_deity#List_of_triple_deities Or more, likely, you are a victim of the human proclivity for seeing patterns and interpreting them to conveniently fit your worldview. Hi, TimB. Trinitarianism holds that there is one God (i.e., one substance), Who consists of three Persons (i.e., hypostases)--not multiple Gods. Occasionally it's suggested that Hinduism also holds to a concept of a divine Trinity, involving "the 'triple form' (trimurti) in which the cosmic functions of creation, maintenance, and destruction are personified by the forms of Brahma, Visnu, and Siva respectively." (See p. 139 of Freda Matchett, Ch. 6: "The Puranas", in Gavin Flood [Ed.], The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism [Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing, 2003], pp. 129-143.) In actuality, this notion appears to be mostly a case of Westerners' eagerness to find corollaries with Christianity in other religions. As historian and Indologist Prof. Arthur Llewellyn Basham writes (see pp. 310-311 of A[rthur]. L. Basham, The Wonder that Was India: A Survey of the Culture of the Indian Sub-Continent Before the Coming of the Muslims [New York: Grove Press, Inc., 1959]): "" Early western students of Hinduism were impressed by the parallel between the Hindu trinity and that of Christianity. In fact the parallel is not very close, and the Hindu trinity, unlike the Holy Trinity of Christianity, never really "caught on". All Hindu trinitarianism tended to favor one god of the three; thus, from the context it is clear that Klidsa's hymn to the Trimūrti is really addressed to Brahm, here looked on as the high god. The Trimūrti was in fact an artificial growth, and had little real influence. "" For more on the triune nature of the Cosmological Singularity, see Sec. 7.3: "The Trinity of God", pp. 43-45 of my previously-cited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which also gives many more details on how the Omega Point cosmology uniquely and precisely matches the cosmology described in the New Testament; additionally on this topic, see my article "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", also previously cited within this thread.
This is why you don’t comment on old threads. He has the “notify me” flag set. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn’t know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he’s wrong.
James, You say, “…Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity…” (You say this is because there is a cosmological singularity that consists of a three-aspect structure.)
By the same reasoning, then, shouldn’t 3-legged chairs be in vogue? How come 3-wheel vehicles are not the norm? Shouldn’t a ménage a trois be our primary mode of sexual interactions? For that matter, why don’t most advanced organisms have 3 major appendages rather than 4?
Come to think of it, if you work your cuckoo reasoning backwards, it seems to me that you should be looking for a 4-part “structure of the cosmological singularity” and a religion that has 4 Gods in One. (And when having sexual intercourse, we should always involve 3 other people.)
Hi, Advocatus. For the details of this mathematical theorem, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".Uh-huh. Well that was a short conversation.
This is why you don't comment on old threads. He has the "notify me" flag set. It doesn't matter what you say, he's just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn't know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he's wrong.You're right, of course. I just didn't want him to get away with the (lying or, at best, pathetically erroneous) stunt of saying a lot of science-ish stuff and then saying "therefore"... Christianity is "selected" by all the science-ish stuff. Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we're probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses.
Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we're probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses.I see his book is free for e download on google books, yet there are no reviews. I've never seen any references to it, except from himself.
My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme "See you later alligator, in a while crocodile". Later, she said, "bye bye alligator" and "see you later crocodile.... joke". She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn't figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn't make something scientific. I'll look into the rest. I've heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate. Are you familiar with this little gem?] You're leading her astray, Lausten. Everybody knows it's, " See ya later alligator, AFTER WHILE, crocodile." She may be ruined forever! Lois
My article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", which is 186 pages in 8.5*11 inch format, uses the Scholarly Method extensively, with 490 entries in the Bibliography and 330 footnotes.I went for a walk with a 4 year old yesterday. I taught her the rhyme "See you later alligator, in a while crocodile". Later, she said, "bye bye alligator" and "see you later crocodile.... joke". She gets that there is some pattern to how jokes go, but she hasn't figured out how to repeat it. Having a bibliography and footnotes doesn't make something scientific. I'll look into the rest. I've heard of Tipler though and doubt what you say is accurate. Are you familiar with this little gem?] You're leading her astray, Lausten. Everybody knows it's, " See ya later alligator, AFTER WHILE, crocodile." She may be ruined forever! Lois Agreed. In my childhood experience, it was "after while". I was being tolerant, however, in assuming that "in a while" was just some northern colloquial divergence. But how are we ever going to have another greatest generation, if our young are subjected to these kind of errors?
This is why you don't comment on old threads. He has the "notify me" flag set. It doesn't matter what you say, he's just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn't know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he's wrong.Hi, Lausten. As far as I am aware, I do not have "the 'notify me' flag set." Regarding vital sapient knowledge, including its methodological basis: One does not simply acquire veridical and systematic knowledge on such subjects as religion, politics, and economics via some process of ætherical osmosis, wherein by merely existing as a human being one absorbs logically and empirically rigorous insight into such subjects. Rather, such erudition can only be obtained by deep readings into those fields--more critically and to the point: readings of those who themselves know whereof they speak, since there is much prattle which flies under the banner of knowledge, including fallacious ideologies which are quite destructive vis-à-vis society. In addition, mere readings do not themselves suffice, even of those writers who are genuinely penetrating. Understanding of what is read is also critical. Very few people, in relative terms, ever embark upon this course; less still get very far in this journey toward truth. It's a hard road to travel, so few people bother. A popular saying runs thus: Ignorance is bliss. In actual fact, ignorance is *not* bliss, because what one does not know will quite often hurt one and one's loved-ones, and very badly at that. As God imparted to Hosea, "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." (Hosea 4:6, New King James Version.) This world is certainly not suffering from an overabundance of truth, but rather quite the opposite: the commonality have been inculcated from birth into massively-destructive lies by those who rule over them. It's the widespread ignorance of the public which enables the government-created horrors which we have seen and will see far more of. However, though ignorance be not bliss, ignorance is easy: being ignorant requires no effort. To quote Prof. Murray N. Rothbard on this matter (from p. 4 of "Anarcho-Communism", The Libertarian Forum, Vol. 2, No. 1 [Jan. 1, 1970], pp. 1 and 4, http://webcitation.org/6K8WaX5VF ): "" It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a "dismal science." But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous *opinion* on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance. "" More than just pertaining to economics, the underlying thrust of Prof. Rothbard's above reproval applies equally to other fields of vital human knowledge, including religion and politics. If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God's existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda. Item No. 1 is important vis-à-vis salvation for those who maintain that they already believe in Jesus Christ's Godhead. Items Nos. 2-5 are important in letting atheists, believers in other religions, and nominal ersatz "Christians" know that God as described by the New Testament does exist and that the New Testament is true. Items Nos. 2-5 are additionally important in giving believers in Christ a much deeper understanding of God and of the End Time, so that they may be strengthened in their faith during the extreme horrors to come and so that they will not fall for the deceptions of the Beast governmental system. My following articles distill all of the most important aspects of veridical human knowledge into a comprehensive, coherent and unified whole: from theology, physics, science, ethics, legal theory, political theory, economics, sociology, epistemology to history. * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo . * James Redford, "Jesus Is an Anarchist", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 4, 2011 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2001), 60 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1337761, https://archive.org/download/JesusIsAnAnarchist/Redford-Jesus-Is-an-Anarchist.pdf . * James Redford, "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Dec. 15, 2011, 9 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1972733, https://archive.org/download/LibertarianAnarchismIsApodicticallyCorrect/Redford-Apodictic-Libertarianism.pdf .
James, You say, "...Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity..." (You say this is because there is a cosmological singularity that consists of a three-aspect structure.) By the same reasoning, then, shouldn't 3-legged chairs be in vogue? How come 3-wheel vehicles are not the norm? Shouldn't a ménage a trois be our primary mode of sexual interactions? For that matter, why don't most advanced organisms have 3 major appendages rather than 4? Come to think of it, if you work your cuckoo reasoning backwards, it seems to me that you should be looking for a 4-part "structure of the cosmological singularity" and a religion that has 4 Gods in One. (And when having sexual intercourse, we should always involve 3 other people.)
This is why you don't comment on old threads. He has the "notify me" flag set. It doesn't matter what you say, he's just going to keep repeating himself. He doesn't know what empiricism or materialism or naturalism of epistemology really mean, but he has no problem telling some of the greatest minds in the world that they are the ones who are wrong. You can sound like you are doing science if can collect enough similar facts in your head then connect them. One requires only a slightly more amount of actual knowledge than James has to explain why he's wrong.You're right, of course. I just didn't want him to get away with the (lying or, at best, pathetically erroneous) stunt of saying a lot of science-ish stuff and then saying "therefore"... Christianity is "selected" by all the science-ish stuff. Of course, this sort of BS would go over well with a niche market of Christians who want to try to make their religion compatible with a more realistic worldview. So we're probably just helping him market something by encouraging his canned responses. Hi, TimB. My full sentence which you above partially quote from was "Christian theology is therefore preferentially selected by the known laws of physics due to the fundamentally triune structure of the cosmological singularity (which, again, has all the haecceities claimed for God in the major religions), which is deselective of all other major religions." It is the parenthetical statement within that full sentence which addresses your above concern. The Cosmological Singularity is intrinsically infinite, and infinity in theology has traditionally been held to be a property unique to God (i.e., God is the only actually-existing infinity in physical reality). The Cosmological Singularity also has all the other unique properties (i.e., haecceities; quiddities) claimed for God in the traditional religions. Hence, by definition, the Cosmological Singularity is God. For details on that, see Sec. 7.1: "The Haecceities of God", pp. 35 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything".
“If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings.”
Says you.
If you had actually proven God, don’t you think someone would have noticed by now? I have never seen such a blatant display of arrogance. You claim not only that you are smarter than most but that you have knowledge that is exclusive to you. You say it’s only a matter of someone reading your book and they’ll have the knowledge you do, but that demonstrates that you don’t understand how knowledge works. If what you have in your head can’t be externally verified, it has no more value than a passing thought or a dream.
James Redford, is a proof (i.e., mathematical theorem) demonstrating that sapient life (in the form of, e.g., immortal superintelligent human-mind computer-uploads and artificial intelligences) is required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to take control over all matter in the universe, for said life to eventually force the collapse of the universe, and for the computational resources of the universe (in terms of both processor speed and memory space) to diverge to infinity as the universe collapses into a final singularity, termed the Omega Point.In the above quote you equate the term "sapient" with human intelligence. IMO, this is a narrow and exclusive interpretation. David Bohm also used the term "insight intelligence" but he did not mean any sentient, let alone sapient awareness. The laws of nature are not intelligent, they are mathematically logical and constant, but that does not make them "wise". Fractals are expressions of a Trinity. It is clearly spelled out in CDT, (causal dynamical triangulation). Three points are the fundamental minimum requirement for 2D representation (a plane). Add one more point and you have 3D (volume). Nothing mystical or intelligent, It's BEAUTIFUL! It is a triangular dynamical causality. If only we had the wisdom to appreciate and respect its awesome mathematical powers, as well as the spiritual beauty which we all observe within our (confined space) mind as a subjective holographic mental (spiritual) image. Our minds create our present from old information, but in our imagination exists as our very present. We live in the future of what we believe to be our present, but we are always looking backward in time.
"If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings." Says you. If you had actually proven God, don't you think someone would have noticed by now? I have never seen such a blatant display of arrogance. You claim not only that you are smarter than most but that you have knowledge that is exclusive to you. You say it's only a matter of someone reading your book and they'll have the knowledge you do, but that demonstrates that you don't understand how knowledge works. If what you have in your head can't be externally verified, it has no more value than a passing thought or a dream.Hi, Lausten. Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) For much more on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the details on how it uniquely conforms to, and precisely matches, the cosmology described in the New Testament, see my following article, which also addresses the societal implications of the Omega Point cosmology: * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, https://archive.org/download/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf . Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE. * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 .
Good rundown on Frank Tipler HERE] in a 2008 review of his work by Martin Gardner. Upshot: crackpot.
Hi, Lausten. Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)I don't think you understand the term "peer-review". It doesn't mean that other scientists read it. They have to actually comment on it, critique it, say they can confirm it based on other data or theorems.
A popular saying runs thus: Ignorance is bliss.Actually, the expression is "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Which kind of reminds me of this conversation, come to think of it. ;)
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God's existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.And yet you can't answer a relatively simple question, which I have asked twice. Hmmm....
A popular saying runs thus: Ignorance is bliss.Actually, the expression is "where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Which kind of reminds me of this conversation, come to think of it. ;)
If one wishes to actually obtain veridical understanding into the most crucial fields of sapient knowledge, then I have made it as easy as possible for one to do so via my own writings. My below articles explain to people (1) theological ethics and soteriology in a comprehensive and logically-coherent manner; (2) how the known laws of physics prove God's existence while demonstrating the exacting and extensive consilience of the New Testament with said physical laws; (3) the nature of God in light of said physical laws; (4) the End Time, the Tribulation, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, the foundation of Heaven on Earth, and the universal resurrection of the dead in light of said physical laws; and (5) the End Time in light of the history of the globalist oligarchy's self-termed New World Order world government and world religion agenda.And yet you can't answer a relatively simple question, which I have asked twice. Hmmm.... Allow me to ask you a very simple question. Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?
Allow me to ask you a very simple question. Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?You're asking ME? Er... off the top of my head, the best answer I can come up with is that the idea of a sentient, intentional God is necessary to some people (although not to me) because they don't like the idea of "random events" ruling their lives. They need to believe that some "higher power" is watching over them, setting things right when the go wrong, or at least watching the fall of every sparrow. How does that sound?
Allow me to ask you a very simple question. Why is a sentient (sapient) intentional God necessary, when the very concept of God does not add any useful information to science?You're asking ME? Er... off the top of my head, the best answer I can come up with is that the idea of a sentient, intentional God is necessary to some people (although not to me) because they don't like the idea of "random events" ruling their lives. They need to believe that some "higher power" is watching over them, setting things right when the go wrong, or at least watching the fall of every sparrow. How does that sound? Sounds good to me.