A frequent responder here asked me about my motives for coming on here and posting my remarks on a use net post. So, I thought I would answer that question.
My motives are to truly offer advice to make other people safe and their equipment work to the best or optimum of its ability. As a child, my house caught on fire due to an electrical short circuit without electrical ground. No one was hurt in the fire, thankfully. However, it took months to rebuild. Remembering this (for more than 40 years now) as I was one who went through something like this, I talk to people about proper use of appliances to prevent fire, shock, injury, and/or other hazards (although these things are not always talked about in my responses to these post). I am a qualified technician and I just bring things down to a level a lot of consumers or prosumers can use, without the use of big, unintelligible words in most situations, following the KISS principle. The intent of these responses is to help others, enjoy these posts, and have the people have working, safe equipment. The intent is to do good and no intent to cause harm. I do this on my own time.
Can you find a proper Usenet client and service? Some are free, respond back if you need pointers.
Necroposting is a waste of peoples time, and is likely to get you killfiled, flammed or ignored. Many block google-groups for that display of inaneness you've shown answering dead posts. It's bad netiquette.
If you must use google groups (and it is a poor display of tech ability if you can't even work that out) then please check the posting date of what you are (probably wasting our) time replying to.
**There is no "God". Such a mythical creature violates several of the fundamental laws that govern our universe. Any person claiming some kind of technical/scientific credentials who clings to such a delusion is suspect. I suggest you do one of two things:
Effective text communication is harder than people think, but with good reading and comprehension skills, it can be the most accurate, in technical subjects (where a phone call can be a waste of time).
Though it's harder to bullshit in text coms, it's still possible - anything without references should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm more selfish. I used to like reading mystery and detective novels. It was fun trying to organize the clues and determine a likely culprit. Same with troubleshooting electronics. Usually, people who ask questions omit important information, like the model number, paraphrase error messages, inject their own pet theories, and generally make it difficult to analyze. When that happens, I suggest that they reorganize their question into a few simple questions:
What problem are you trying to solve? One sentence is sufficient.
What do you have to work with? (Maker, model, version number, options, documentation, and general condition).
What have you done so far and what happened? (Error messages, fire, smoke, explosion, etc).
What is your technical ability level and what test equipment is available?
The difficult part is getting accurate information and error messages. For reasons unknown, entering a model number from the back of a TV, or errors from a display, into a computer keyboard without errors is difficult. I frequently resort to interrogating people to get answers to simple questions. Some people will waltz around the obvious culprit, ignore the obvious and confuse descriptions by adding irrelevant drivel. It sometimes seems like I'm trying to fix the owner instead of the device. Prying information out of owners can be frustrating at times, but the results are usually worth the effort.
Hint: If you know HOW things work, you can fix anything.
Agnostic here.. Saying there is no intelligent creator offers the same complete lack of evidence as those that say there is a creator. One thing I've learned reading just about everything well known theoretical physicists say is that they don't have a *clue* how the universe started or, more importantly, *why* there is even a universe at all. Further, many of those scientists remain as believing in intelligent design despite years of study.
In other words, debating this one way or the other or making declarative statements one way or the other is done with no evidence whatsoever, only opinion which is worthless.
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 1:55:29 PM UTC-5, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
I understand what I did in terms of responding to a few really old posts. I apologized for the timing and I acknowledged that right up front. I commented on it for the benefit of posterity (in the future, someone else might look at it), and that was the main reason why I did it. You seem to take offense about something that was intended for good (and I explained myself already). However, that's the world view today- Call the bad good and the good is called bad. I still say that I said what I said for good reasons and good intentions, though you are inclined to disagree with me (and it is okay to agree to disagree). Besides, in being relatively new here (although I come with experience), aren't I allowed to make errors or mistakes just like any other person or human being (even though it is not intended to offend or cause harm)?
As far as the time is concerned, it is my own time I am putting out there and the advice is free- doesn't cost a thing. In fact I am 50, more than half my life is over and I am a lot closer to death than you probably are. I live on as each day was my last- for we never know about tomorrow (as far as our own existence goes). I have wasted more time waiting in line in my local area at a store, gas station, or parts sales facilities waiting to have someone serve me to take care of something so I can complete my projects to help take care of others. Sometimes, it is a fruitless effort. At least here, you are seeing the fruit (the advice) up front. It is up to you to take it (or not). You have choices too. The other waste of time is when one attacks and blasts another at the expense of another person for sheer entertainment value for all to see and to gloat while another person's feelings get hurt. Life is too short for that too. even if someone is 180 degrees out of phase from me on viewpoint, I give them my opinion (correct them gently if necessary) and let them save face in the right spirit of serving mankind through work and with the gift of this knowledge. I had learned from your valued advice, input, and the other prior advice I got from others here. Thank you.. I answered a fundamental question another response poster raised which became the title of this thread. I also answered the question because I do not like "loose ends". I expressed my motives, That is it. You are welcome to read into it what you want.
When I use those references to wit you seem to find offensive, I am merely being polite and wishing you a great day and even going as far as to say bless you- saying those things should not be offensive to anyone, as I am not preaching religion or proselytizing here. Proving the existence of one or disproving it is a matter of faith and there are other use net posts for that. I am not here to talk about religion or philosophy. I am merely being pleasant with that closing greeting. I hope you have a great day. Try to consider that even though some are older now, there are still good people here that just want to help. Again, have a great day.
You heat the nail on the head right there, in regards to "fixing" the owner. Many customers come to me with an it does not work symptom. When I document these repairs (as I have over many years), the original symptom was "does not work", whether it be a TV, Stereo, computer, etc... So I had to have the owner be more descriptive about what it does and more specific about the problem. I also had to let the owner know from a tech. point of view so we have a basis in which to begin diagnosing a problem to arrive on a conclusion for a repair process to take place that we can feel relatively confident in. I like that approach to problem solving too.
This is why I say that being a tech involves being part mechanic, part detective, and part psychologist.
As far as the obvious, that gets overlooked a lot. I had come up with a checklist of the obvious to check for during the process of diagnosing to avoid missing something. Of course, it is easier to catch when we are well rested and first come into work. By the end of a 14 or 16 hour day, that tiredness can affect one's performance- and admittedly we can miss something as we get towards the end of the work day. So, we not only have to stay healthy physically, but stay alert, and keep our minds sharp, as these are in our "tool kit" too.
**A fence-sitter. Have the courage of your convictions.
Saying there is no intelligent creator offers the same complete lack of evidence as those that say there is a creator.
**It is impossible to prove a null-hypothesis. I won't try. In the entire history of humnan-kind, there has never been any RELIABLE evidence to suggest the existence of supernatural creatures or events. Therefore, we may disregard any claims of these alleged supernatural creatures or events.
One thing I've learned reading just about everything well known theoretical physicists say is that they don't have a *clue* how the universe started or, more importantly, *why* there is even a universe at all. Further, many of those scientists remain as believing in intelligent design despite years of study.
**Bullshit. 'Intelligent Design' is just 'Creationsim' re-invented. It is complete bunk and no credible scientist accepts it as evidence for anything. Scientists are quite certain about how the universe began, down to within a few microseconds after the big bang occurred. There are certainly some remaining mysteries. They are possibly unknowable.
**I agree. Claiming that there is some kind of God is dumb. There is not, nor has there ever been, a shred of evidence to prove the existence of such a creature. We may, therefore, ignore the proponents of such a creature as crackpots.
I've been doling out tech support since the 80s (print journals) then
90s (bbses, usenet, internet web site) and now on FB, web site, and usenet. I like to share information, and it also helps me as sometimes advice I've given in the past turns up when I am searching for a solution now and find I had sorted it out a few decades back - but had forgotten in the interim. Mostly in the field I work in - amusement machine service - but also in other fields where I have a passing interest...and I'm only 71, not finished yet by a long shot - too many projects to work on!
If there is a Creator in the "Big Three" religion model:
He/She/It is a pretty whimsical, cruel and nasty presence. He/She/It appears to be focused on how to create the worst possible conditions for the bulk of its creatures, while favoring a few with no discernable reason for either. He/She/It is clearly bored and looking for the next thing to amuse its august presence.
And, if there is not - that does not preclude any 'creator'. Just one that is purported to care about its creations.
William of Occam favors the latter. There is no discernable, verifiable evidence that there is a 'greater caring entity' out there. As proving the negative is a fallacy, it remains that the simplest explanation is that there is none.
I'm not a fence sitter. I'm just honest enough to say that I don't know - but I am honest with myself. If anything, admitting I don't know takes more courage than if I were to blindly accept a theory that can't be proven. No matter how theoretical physicists spin a "big bang" theory, they can't show any evidence or create in a lab anything from a big box of nothing, and there are plenty of scientists who say this out loud. There is no more evidence for a natural big bang start to the universe than there is for a supernatural intelligent creator. In other words none. Until I see some evidence either way, my opinion won't change.
Fine, call it what you will. I always thought Intelligent Design and Creationism were the same thing but maybe there's a distinction I'm unaware of, but there are scientists who do believe in intelligent design/creationism.
No, some *say* they know, but they don't. Any opinion they have is their own not supported by any scientific data that can even begin to explain why the universe even exists at all.
The same goes for any sky daddy. Creationists (or Intelligent Design) run into the same problem that the Big Bang folks do when explaining their side: there is no evidence to explain when and where this god appeared and what existed before him/her/it/they. Their only answer is to say that he/she/it/they always existed. That is just as unsupported in any scientific fact as Big Bang is.
a) What is known of the Universe may be extrapolated backwards in time. All a telescope does, whatever type of radiation it observes, is look backward in time. b) It is a pretty linear extrapolation based on the data observed to follow distributed energy back to a (probably) single point. c) And, this really is basic, established science based on direct observation of specific evidence that also is repeatable. d) CERN has told us a great deal on how matter is formed, how it holds together, how it behaves and more. e) It turns out that even this is predictable and repeatable. Making it also basic science. f) However, we still do not know what we do not know. g) Clarke's Third Law: Science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.
William of Occam suggests that one should not needlessly multiply entities.
See this as a multiple choice problem:
There is a "GOD" in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish model, complete/replete with all the various trappings assigned thereto.
There is a Prime Mover that is self-aware.
There is/are forces that is/are responsible/resulted in the 'big bang'. Said force/forces need not be self-aware, intelligent, self-directed, nor anything else other than (a) Force/Forces.
Which is the simplest explanation?
There are those who believe that fetal recapitulation is proof of God/Intelligent Design. There are those that believe just the opposite. Point being that evidence-in-a-vacuum leads to a potential for misinterpretation. As, both cannot be correct in the above example.
Writing for myself, I am much happier believing that I am more-or-less responsible for my state in this world - and not living at the whim of some probably malicious, certainly capricious, demonstrably not benign 'creator'.
Indecision is the key to flexibility. If I were undecided and shopping around for a religion, I would go with the highest bidder. Offers of an afterlife, threats of eternal damnation, enlightenment, celestial soap opera, secret knowledge, and future intangibles seem like poor investments. I would be expected to follow a rule book and collect my prize after I die. That's not particularly appealing and seems rather risky. All that might have worked when the average life expectancy was 27 years. Today, it's 77 years and don't have the patience to wait that long.
A possible solution is autotheism or egotheism. Basically, I declare myself to be my own god, and worship myself. This has many advantages. It's economical since I retain most of my income (no tithe). There are no tedious books to read since I'll be writing my own instructions as I go along. I can keep my options open and make the final decision just before I die. If I want to reward myself, I can do that in small installments or pay for my reward with credit cards, and default after I die.
Drivel: My version of Usenet from a mildly biblical perspective:
Well, yes and no. A Telescope does indeed see a situation as it was when the light (or radiation) started it's travel towords it. This does not mean that what we know of the unviverse can be extrapolated backwards in time. Or at least it's not the same things: if it can be done, it needs much more than a telescope.
It may be a non linear extrapolation: we don't know. We are still trying to find out.
The observations are repeatable, the conclusions are only based on "best" models of which we are not certain at all.
CERN cannot tell us anything, it doesn't speak. The results of the experiments done at CERN have shown us what basic building blocks matter has and how they interact with one another, but these are far from being complete and telling us "more" than that. They even raise more questions than ansqers and this is the beauty of physical research: there's work to be done tonorrow too.
Was, is no longer.
I am not advocating the existence of a God nor his non-existence. I am with ohg who says you just can't prove either way, so this whole discussion is just repeating your own conviction and nothing else. It is futile to try to convince other people of your convictions, especially with "evidence" you can't have because there is just none. A lot of people have tried before and it hasn't worked yet.
What I am saying is that you clearly never studied any physics at a University. Had you done that, you would have remembered very well the moment the professor told you "We don't know if the "Big Bang" ever really occurred. It's a theory, but as of right now it's the best theory we have" (and that was about 15 years ago, when the neutrino didn't have a mass).
In other words ohg is right when he writes "scientists don't know for sure, they think it is this way".