Hi,

I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which discusses
religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science related
issues.

And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that
might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a belief
in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
rather than random.

Here's the link for the video series:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj

I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4.
Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't learn
anything in each of the videos 2-6.

[by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be broken
on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:

> Hi,
>
> I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which discusses
> religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science related
> issues.
>
> And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that
> might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
> with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a
> belief
> in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
> rather than random.
>
> Here's the link for the video series:
> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
>
> I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4.
> Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't
> learn
> anything in each of the videos 2-6.
>
> [by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be
> broken
> on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
> Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
> Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
> ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and
how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main
arguments, more just a side issue.

It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least
part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your experience
influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be a
problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves
into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
experiences.

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>
Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
go again…

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>
>Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>go again…

If nothing else, T.O. trolls can be credited with consistency.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>
> Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
> insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
> go again…
>
>
>
Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>>
>> Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>> insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>> go again…
>>
>>
>>
> Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...
>
We have already been discussing The Matrix and that’s not far removed.

On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:

>someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>
>Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>go again…
>
I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
more incoherent than previously.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:

> In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which
> > discusses
> > religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science
> > related
> > issues.
> >
> > And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that
> > might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
> > with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a
> > belief
> > in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
> > rather than random.
> >
> > Here's the link for the video series:
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
> >
> > I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4.
> > Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't
> > learn
> > anything in each of the videos 2-6.
> >
> > [by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be
> > broken
> > on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
> > Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
> > Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
> > ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>
> I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and
> how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main
> arguments, more just a side issue.
>
> It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least
> part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your
> experience
> influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
> not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of
> NAND
> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would
> be
> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain
> way
> if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be
> a
> problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves
> into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
> some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
> experiences.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
> Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
> Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
> ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

Saw a few responses, but didn't notice anyone take apart the "Influence Issue",
or the "Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue". Why isn't that surprising?

Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
"Follow the loving selfless path".

https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:

> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
>
> > someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
> > >
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
> > > gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could
> > > would be
> > > tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a
> > > certain way
> > > if the reality was one in which things experienced.
> > >
> > Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of �someone� were
> > insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
> > go again�
> >
> I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
> more incoherent than previously.
> >
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

Bob C., mentions a minor argument, which explained why whether any of reality is
experienced or not is not computable. Which could be thought to be an issue for
a physicalist belief in which we are evolved biological machines whose brains
are running some type of neural network computation (because we can tell that at
least part of reality is experiencing, which isn't computable). Noticeably Bob
C., didn't offer any flaw in the argument, but I am grateful for him having
looked at the video, and brought up an argument from it. Though the main issues
raised in that particular video from the series were the Influence Issue, and
the Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue, which he didn't mention.

For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the
series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
(which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m

There are some comebacks to "4. Belief" covered in the next one in the series,
"5. Issues with belief?".
Series link:https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue

Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
"Follow the loving selfless path".

https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
> In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
>
[snip]
>
> For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the
> series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
> (which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
>
That creepshow managed to evoke in me the “uncanny valley”:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:

> In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
>
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
> > <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
> >
> > > someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > > >
> > > > The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of
> > > > NAND
> > > > gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could
> > > > would be
> > > > tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a
> > > > certain way
> > > > if the reality was one in which things experienced.
> > > >
> > > Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of �someone� were
> > > insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
> > > go again�
> > >
> > I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
> > more incoherent than previously.
> > >
> > --
> >
> > Bob C.
> >
> > "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> > the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> > 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
> >
> > - Isaac Asimov
>
> Bob C., mentions a minor argument, which explained why whether any of reality
> is
> experienced or not is not computable. Which could be thought to be an issue
> for
> a physicalist belief in which we are evolved biological machines whose brains
> are running some type of neural network computation (because we can tell that
> at
> least part of reality is experiencing, which isn't computable). Noticeably Bob
> C., didn't offer any flaw in the argument, but I am grateful for him having
> looked at the video, and brought up an argument from it. Though the main
> issues
> raised in that particular video from the series were the Influence Issue, and
> the Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue, which he didn't mention.
>
> For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the
> series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this
> link
> (which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/
> 921153137#t=7m
>
> There are some comebacks to "4. Belief" covered in the next one in the series,
> "5. Issues with belief?".
> Series link:https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
>
>

Whoops, sorry made a mistake there. The poster who had mentioned part of the
video was me. Bob C might not have even viewed it.

Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
"Follow the loving selfless path".

https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

On 3/22/24 9:22 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>> In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the
>> series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
>> (which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
>>
> That creepshow managed to evoke in me the “uncanny valley”:
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
>
>
Where in the world did you find that link? Uncanny indeed!

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:27:19 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by someone37 <admin@answernot42.com>:

>In reply to "Bob Casanova" who wrote the following:
>
>> On Thu, 21 Mar 2024 08:39:33 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
>> <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
>>
>> > someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>> > > gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could
>> > > would be
>> > > tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a
>> > > certain way
>> > > if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>> > >
>> > Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>> > insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>> > go again…
>> >
>> I knew he (she? it?) sounded familiar. And if anything even
>> more incoherent than previously.
>> >
>> --
>>
>> Bob C.
>>
>> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
>> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
>> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>>
>> - Isaac Asimov
>
>Bob C., mentions a minor argument
>
No, I did not; I mentioned your incoherence during your
prior appearance, which IIRC I noted at the time. You have
yet to formulate a coherent argument.
>
>, which explained why whether any of reality is
>experienced or not is not computable. Which could be thought to be an issue for
>a physicalist belief in which we are evolved biological machines whose brains
>are running some type of neural network computation (because we can tell that at
>least part of reality is experiencing, which isn't computable). Noticeably Bob
>C., didn't offer any flaw in the argument
>
There was no argument involving you in which I was also
involved. Have you always been delusional?
>
>, but I am grateful for him having
>looked at the video, and brought up an argument from it. Though the main issues
>raised in that particular video from the series were the Influence Issue, and
>the Fine Tuning of the Experience Issue, which he didn't mention.
>
>For those that would be interested in just diving into a specific part of the
>series to understand what is being referred to, you could just follow this link
>(which skips the first 7 minutes of 4.Belief): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
>
>There are some comebacks to "4. Belief" covered in the next one in the series,
>"5. Issues with belief?".
>Series link:https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
> "Follow the loving selfless path".
>
>https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:

> In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which
> > discusses
> > religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science
> > related
> > issues.
> >
> > And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that
> > might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
> > with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a
> > belief
> > in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
> > rather than random.
> >
> > Here's the link for the video series:
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
> >
> > I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4.
> > Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't
> > learn
> > anything in each of the videos 2-6.
> >
> > [by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be
> > broken
> > on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
> > Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
> > Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
> > ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>
> I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and
> how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main
> arguments, more just a side issue.
>
> It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least
> part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your
> experience
> influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
> not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of
> NAND
> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would
> be
> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain
> way
> if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be
> a
> problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves
> into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
> some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
> experiences.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
> Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
> Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
> ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

That argument can be found in "4. Belief", as well as other issues for atheists
that hold the physicalist outlook. For those that would be interested in
watching those isues, you could just follow this link (which skips the first 7
minutes of "4. Belief"): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
And some potential comebacks to that video are handled in "5. Issues with
belief?" for those of you interested (including Descartes argument for a
physical, Problem of Evil, Free Will issues (including Relativity, and
experiments such as Libet type experiments etc.)).

Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
"Follow the loving selfless path".

https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue

--
----------------------------------------- --- -- -
Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -

erik simpson wrote:

> On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>>
>> Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>> insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>> go again…
>>
>>
>>
> Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...

Can't offer a film, can offer SMBC
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/consciousness-4

Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> erik simpson wrote:
>
>> On 3/21/24 1:39 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> someone37 <admin@answernot42.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of NAND
>>>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would be
>>>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain way
>>>> if the reality was one in which things experienced.
>>>>
>>> Aha, NAND gates. Seems the past 36 incarnations of “someone” were
>>> insufficient to the task so the resurrection ship spawned another. Here we
>>> go again…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Next we'll gt the brains in vats. Wait for it...
>
> Can't offer a film, can offer SMBC
> https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/consciousness-4
>
God’s right about the immune system. It’s ironic God is taunting us about
AI. We presume God created us, but that navel gazing self-reflectiveness
conferred the reflexivity for us to create our own reality (matrix-lite).
We assuaged our fear of mortality by creating gods, but once our
understanding of the universe improved we killed these obsolete gods off
one by one. Our AI creations may become self-reflective enough to then
return the favor.

On 24/03/2024 14:17, someone37 wrote:
> In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
>
>> In reply to "someone37" who wrote the following:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have just managed to finish making a 9 part animated series, which
>>> discusses
>>> religious issues as well as discussing more philosophical and science
>>> related
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> And the reason I think it is relevant to this group, is that an option that
>>> might not be so often explored is that while God exists, there may be issues
>>> with more traditional understandings. And the philosophical support for a
>>> belief
>>> in God, can help shape whether evolution ought to be thought of as by design
>>> rather than random.
>>>
>>> Here's the link for the video series:
>>> https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGlmuzlMofn040paBFUSSNtPsOnusw4Bj
>>>
>>> I'd start at the beginning, but some might rather just skip to number 4.
>>> Obviously the series is quite long, but I'd be surprised if people didn't
>>> learn
>>> anything in each of the videos 2-6.
>>>
>>> [by the way the "Moderation and Posting to Talk.Origins" link seems to be
>>> broken
>>> on the talk.origins.org welcome page.]
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
>>> Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
>>> Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
>>> ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>>
>> I'll give an example of an argument which is featured in video 4. Belief, and
>> how it can relate to this talk.origins group. It isn't one of the main
>> arguments, more just a side issue.
>>
>> It is that while you (presumably) can tell from your experience that at least
>> part of reality experiences (you), and can therefore deduce that your
>> experience
>> influences you, there isn't a way to compute whether reality is experienced or
>> not. The reason is that any computation can be done with an arrangement of
>> NAND
>> gates (they are functionally complete) is because a claim that it could would
>> be
>> tantamount to suggesting that NAND gates could only be arranged in a certain
>> way
>> if the reality was one in which things experienced. But that would seem to be
>> a
>> problem for an account which suggested that the chemicals arranged themselves
>> into some replicating cell which could evolve though mutation, and that we are
>> some resulting biological machine whose brain can compute that part of reality
>> experiences.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------- --- -- -
>> Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Final
>> Free Newsreader @ http://www.newsleecher.com/
>> ------------------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>
> That argument can be found in "4. Belief", as well as other issues for atheists
> that hold the physicalist outlook. For those that would be interested in
> watching those isues, you could just follow this link (which skips the first 7
> minutes of "4. Belief"): https://vimeo.com/921153137#t=7m
> And some potential comebacks to that video are handled in "5. Issues with
> belief?" for those of you interested (including Descartes argument for a
> physical, Problem of Evil, Free Will issues (including Relativity, and
> experiments such as Libet type experiments etc.)).
>
>
> Wish you all well, and as a wise man might say:
> "Follow the loving selfless path".
>
> https://vimeo.com/showcase/the-lottery-issue
>

Why would God model a butterfly to make people think a butterfly was
there when it wasn't? Why not just make both butterflies and people with
eyes to see them?