No, it was Al Sleet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1uaw3WIOlc

He says it at 0:15, 0:33, 1:52, 2:03, 2:09, 2:19 and right at the end: "Al."

But thanks for scaring me!

Cool theological discussion by the way. Just another day at the ol' sports column.

Thanks again for your thoughtful response. I appreciate your passion and willingness to continue to engage.

There is only one point you make that I personally take issue with, and that is your statement that:

If one questioner could just provide the n-s conditions for his claim, or the underpinning of his quest, then much of this could be rendered more legitimate as a useful pursuit. As opposed to mere speculations that never produce results.

I would suggest that your use of the term "results" is biased on positivist assumptions. Perhaps the "results" obtained from intellectual study of the "infinite" or "mystery" do not meet the critera for empirical science. However, your mention of "returning to the same point in an endless loop" reminds me very much of mantra meditation.

As you probably know, science has shown repeatedly that regular meditators have certain physiological and neural strengths not generally found in non-meditators. As you also probably know, many Eastern forms of meditation have no need of any higher deity in the way the Western traditions do; that is they don't posit, "God". I think for the intellectually inclined seeker, philosophical study of this sort acts as meditation and may indeed provide "results" in the form of improved health and well-being rather than strict, empirical answers.

That is why I don't believe them to be a waste of time. Although this path is certainly not for everyone, as not everyone is satisfied with non- or trans-rational "answers".

Take care.

jazztao wrote:

However, I doubt very much that the questions "why are we here?" and "what was there before there was something?" will ever be vanquished from the human experience.

I don't either. I simply don't think they can ever be answered, which is why science didn't prosper and move from strength to strength until it began to ignore all 'why' questions. E.g. we never ask 'Why do stars shine?' we ask HOW they shine. The latter let to more productive and fruitful approaches of research and discovery of nuclear fusion in stellar cores.

Also people may not like the feasible answer, such as there may not be any "purpose" to why we are here. We may just "be here" with no point or purpose. It may then ultimately be up to us as sentient beings and orphans in a purposeless cosmos to craft our own purpose as opposed to looking for it on high.

That mystery, though it shall remain a mystery, is not unworthy of exploration or discourse.

I know and can appreciate that, as I initially began taking courses in theology and philosophy at a Catholic university, before I switched to pure science (astronomy-astrophysics) at a public one, working with some of the best stellar astrophysicists and astrometists, dynamicists.

You choose not to entertain these questions and that's fine, but to suggest that they are not valid questions I think is incorrect

I simply think the questions are a waste of time. I pursued them - while doing philosophy- at great length. It never got anywhere and one merely returned to the same point in and endless loop. Then, my attention shifted to science and I began to appreciate the positivist approach, as in quantum mechanics, wherein we do not ask 'why' electrons behave as probability waves in atoms, or how the exp (iEt/h) factor figures in the Schrodinger equation - we simply accept these in terms of the theory's predictions as a prescriptive template.

And no - again, I do not say the "higher questions" are "invaid". I simply say they were (and remain) unproductive for me. As for others, as I said, I suspect the questions, on account of the entry of the Godel Incompletenes theorems at various levels, lead to excess self-reference, and that is why one gets endless loops and no clear progress.

If one questioner could just provide the n-s conditions for his claim, or the underpinning of his quest, then much of this could be rendered more legitimate as a useful pursuit. As opposed to mere speculations that never produce results.

Read it in his own words:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/331953

Again, that is a beautiful explanation, and of course the focus on necessary and sufficient conditions is succinct and reliable.

However, I doubt very much that the questions "why are we here?" and "what was there before there was something?" will ever be vanquished from the human experience. That mystery, though it shall remain a mystery, is not unworthy of exploration or discourse. You choose not to entertain these questions and that's fine, but to suggest that they are not valid questions I think is incorrect.

jazztao wrote:

The trouble is it doesn't explain why or how the "early (photon-radiation) era cosmos" exists in the first place. I find the theory elegant, powerful and beautiful, but it doesn't speak to Ultimate Cause in any way.

No, it doesn't, because it provides a positivist solution not a causal one. As Mario Bunge (Causality and Modern Science, Dover) has observed:

"Giving reasons is no longer regarded as assigning causes. In Science, it means to combine particular propositions about facts with hypotheses, laws, axioms and definitions. In general, there is no correspondence between sufficient reason and causation."

Bunge and others recommend instead the elucidation of necessary and sufficient conditions. A necessary condition is one without which the event cannot occur. A sufficient condition is one which - if present- the event must occur.

For example, consider a hydrogen emission nebula. A necessary condition is a hydrogen gas cloud. If there is no hydrogen cloud there can be no emission nebula. A sufficient condition is a proximate source of radiation, e.g. star, which can excite the electrons in many of the clouds hydrogen atoms to higher energy levels. On returning to lower energy levels there will then be the emission of photons and voila! The H-emission nebula.

What is essential for the non-positivists to do, is not to pursue the hollow "ultimate cause" but rather try to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for what THEY believe is essential to the origin of the cosmos.

Again, this is not a problem for the modern Materialist-positivist. Asking for the "ultimate cause" of the original quantum fluctuation is for us tantamount to asking "What is north of the north pole?"