snippets to ponder:
- "Gods as Topological Invariants" - D. Schoch
"We show that the number of gods in a universe must equal the Euler characteristics of its underlying manifold. By incorporating the classical cosmological argument for creation, this result builds a bridge between theology and physics and makes theism a testable hypothesis. Theological implications are profound since the theorem gives us new insights in the topological structure of heavens and hells. Recent astronomical observations can not reject theism, but data are slightly in favor of atheism."
Close a hole. Kill a god!
- "How to Build a Science Superpower"> - Priya Natarajan
- Raindrops In Rock: Clues To A Perplexing Paradox
- Breaking All the Rules - the Paul Frampton case
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Last night, a reader sent me a link to *yet another* wretched attempt to argue for the existence of God using Bayesian probability. I *really* hate that. Over the years, I've learned to dread Bayesian arguments, because *so many* of them are things like this, where someone cobbles together a pile…
John Lynch has a post up about Richard Dawkins' lack of theological sophistication in The God Delusion. John is basically reiterating the point that Dawkins did not truly engage theological arguments for theism on a very high or sophisticated level. In fact, John levels the implicit charge that…
The current issue of Scientific American has an article, by George F. R. Ellis, expressing some skepticism about the multiverse. Sadly, it seems that only the beginning of the article is freely available online. However, replies to the article by Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark are available…
For a long time, the Disco. 'tute insisted that "intelligent design" is science, and that questions about who did the designing are theological and beyond ID's scope. IDolators insist that ID can be evaluated without knowing anything about the nature of the designer.
This never made sense.
So in…
Re Frampton: read http://arxiv.org/abs/1004.1910 . I dare you.
Please note the publication date on the link. ;-)
From just a couple of days ago!
We bring you the hottest news here on this here blog...
It was analysed by a top skepto who noted it is axiomatic and therefore correct, given the assumptions.
I just saw "Topology of Gods", perhaps via CiteULike? I was puzzled: How could the author have no endorsements, nor be an endorser himself? http://arxiv.org/auth/show-endorsers/1203.6902 Yet he published...THAT!
Fortunately, arXiv lists CatDynamics as the sole blog trackback for said "article". Mystery solved, with thanks to Tamara and her clever comment!