This more or less describes the state of the debate over the value of the Hubble constant in the mid-1990s.

But even if this slimy theocrat weren’t a zealot, how would that alter the fact that the jihadis certainly were?

They might believe that they will go directly to heaven, without stopping in limbo, but they didn’t attack us because they don’t feel survival pressure from us. What if it can be demonstrated that their apparently irrational fanaticism serves a very rational survival purpose that isn’t readily apparent, but is entirely innate in its origin?

Remeber, we’re talking about an existence theorem here: does evil *exist*?

It does when the existential quantifier is the system killing runaway tendency that is inherent to the survival instinct.

I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance.

It also depends on which cosmological principle that you assume, and in what model, as I’ve said. I can think of at least one that says that “evil” is existentially quantifiable within whatever argument is the least conducive to the **long-term** survival of the whole.

In this context, evil is represented by whatever worldview currently expresses the greatest tendency to throw the system past the point of no return, and fatally out of harmony with nature. This naturally defined “evil” might change “sides”, but it is inherent to any imbalanced system, which is all of them, so yes, “evil” does exist, teleologically, if the “self-guaging” “Darwinian cosmology” is in effect.

I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance.

The “slimy theocrat” might be lying through his teeth, but he’s saying all the right things in the name of long-term survival.

Nature says, balance is “good”.

Men fly planes into skyscrapers for the purpose of indiscriminate mass murder in the name of Allah, and a member of the theocratic oligarchy that bred these men apportions culpability to the government of the victims — yes, this is zealotry.

But even if this slimy theocrat weren’t a zealot, how would that alter the fact that the jihadis certainly were?

Remeber, we’re talking about an existence theorem here: does evil *exist*?

How do you test the assumption that all physics can be explained mathematically?

I can’t see how you can make the leap from moral philosophy to cultural relativism in physics not least because the vocabulary of physics is mathematics.

The whole point of mathematics is that another rational person cannot think differently.

And I will continue to think of people who deny the objective nature of mathematics and physics as “defective, deluded or downright dangerous.”

You infer that rational people can’t be dangerous, or that 911 wasn’t motivated by the politics of “rational people, thinking differently”:

“At times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
-Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal

Quite the zealot, indeed.

“If you think you are acting in accordance with the eternal moral truths of the universe, after all, it is likely that you will think of people who think and act differently as being defective, deluded, or downright dangerous.”

Actually thinking of another human being as defective or dangerous — the horrors! Please save us with some hair-splitting relativism.

And I know where you’re going with this, you reactionary cretin. But those jihadi hijackers weren’t dangerous at all. Quite plausibly, they were just rational people thinking differently. Whewww.

I think this is really an ancient idea, perhaps now with a modern gloss.

Amen, brother.

I think that the question owes its existence to the fact that we don’t yet know for a fact what cosmological model is actually in effect.