dear q+a
re question ;

If you have 2 movable points at opposite ends of a straight line,
where on that line do you think they can join as one under "God"?

the imediate reply is in the middle
but
you dont say in which direction they are moving or able to move[together or appart]
[one direction or any[of own volition or by some controling law

or if the line is level or inclined so they are stationary or both falling left or right

then if they are moving of their own violition do they [or are they capable of meeting
or if they are capable of moving to a set middle point to join
[one could have the same polarity as the other which means they would naturally repel each other

in short there are too many variables that are unstated [thus unkown]
____________
say we are talking about believers [they could be believing in divergent beliefs in god,
or one is athiest ,and the other believer ,
that can only meet in a time where the truth become undenyable

further no distance is given [if infinate even moving they would [could never meet]

then are we talking about sold out sciene types and those observing pure science
or politics where the elites have it all
or law where justice depends on who has the best lawyer[and barrister ] or the right judge

i wont even get into dimensions ,or quantum mechanics
but i guess the easy reply is they can only meet in the middle

Because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations we hold fast to a belief in causalty. We are all scientists is some respect. But when we cannot continue to seek answers, sometimes because there are none that we can prove or we want to remain ignorant, we tend to say that some effects may not have material causes, i.e. indeterminism. For this reason I go with determinism and on the balance of probabilities I’m prepared to assume that we evolved miraculously like everything else. It would be an even more extraordinary notion to the point of pure absurdity that life was somehow created separately from evolution and then allowed to evolve or even quite absurdly never evolve.

I might add that I prefer a new understanding of determinism, where determinism encourages us to seek answers and knowledge, while indeterminism says there are none and maintains ignorance. I may also say that determinism and indeterminism both seem necessary to our survival BUT there needs to be a connection and it is this connection/relationship "line" that counts. BUT do you think someone’s all-powerful teddy (god) has confiscated it?

Ke-iran
your use of words confuses me
determisim[= having-determined-a-cause?]

non? [indetermism]
[no-decern-able ;cause?]

thus your statement;

>>'I-may-also-say that determinism and indeterminism both-seem necessary-to-our-survival BUT-there-needs to-be a-connection <<

I agree every cause has an action/o\ reaction ,

[i feel science logic is based on it] thus they have the THEORY of evolution
[even hypothitysing on the creation of the first cell, [dispite never via science replicating it] ,nor indeed confirming their natural selection evolution-THEORY into a new species.]

natural selection actually induces species stasis [arround its wild type speci genus genomic complimment according to its speci type]

but human cause [ie human selection has 'created' expression of species genomic variation ,
but all yet within it specie genome boundries

[witness the divergent breed in dogs , cats , cattle ,live stock poultry]
yet each breed of chicken is yet a chicken [or a duck , or a cow etc]

If my definitions at the top are correct every 'thing' has an underlying 'cause' ,
nothing could egsist sans a cause ,

the universe itself is said to be 'caused ' by god saying be [or the big bang] depending if your theist or athiest.

i agree with your statement >>]and-it-is-this-connection/relationship-"line"-that-counts.<<

that life alone can make life ?
that 'life' cannot spontainiously-appear sans logical-reason?

>>BUT-do-you-think-someone’s-all-powerful-teddy-(god)-has-confiscated-it?'<<
If you mean caused us?
[yes i do ]
life breathed life into the dust

[god is logus that created life [sustained by the light]

even you and i were 'breathed' [aspirated] as a 'living' sperm ,that our mothers caused to become [grow] us

ie we live because our parents [ie our cause] did live before us
i write be-cause you wrote

we write be-cause words devel-oped through time
[but that all decended into our minds via various 'causes']

ok it is not for us to know what 'cause ' caused 'god' but he is eternal [allways was [allways will be ]

thus him alone would need no 'cause' because every thing has to have an absolute definative cause [even ; indeterminism thus has its cause ]

Geoff, the glaring problem in Australia is that there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of carbon guilt, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue.

Go to Australia's tax funded national broadcaster the ABC, and you will see that it disgracefully fails to report proper science because all it offers is a sneak view into the madness, power, politics, funding and control of the global warming industry which is best understood as a religious calling.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/planetslayer/greenhouse_calc.htm

This “Professor Schpinkee’s Greenhouse Calculator" is an inexorable and schemingly designed piece of propaganda targeting young impressionable minds. It crudely promotes the worship of a fictional view of life with the monstrous lie that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. This is a paradox and when you find every paradox you also find incorrect assumptions.

It is now not education at the ABC because it is deceptive, ugly, damaging, indoctrination and a place where young people learn to be stupid and get proselytised by being relieved of their commonsense.

Sadly, AGW has spilled over into circles with little, if any, knowledge and experience in science and its methods.
Also sadly, many scientists and related professionals (mostly in US) fell for entirely non-scientific sentiment.
Scientists should be aware that publishing unbalanced views WILL be used and abused. And this tarnishes the image and credibility of science.
Unbalanced views WILL be pointed at as “science” at will for totally unscientific purposes; ideological, economical… you name it. And this debate proves the point.

It's truly impressive that so many people have been conned into conflating corporate profit margins with scientific rationalism.

It's true that many "believers" in AGW are uninformed of the science underpinning it, but they ARE aware that a solid majority of relevant scientists confirm the existence of AGW.

Skeptics, on the other hand, are also mostly ignorant of the science, but they take the skeptical position because their preferred political parties - bankrolled by high-carbon-emmitting industries - tell them to.

I'll put my money with the underpaid scientists over the cash-deluged conservative think tanks.