🚀 go-pugleaf

pbamvv@worldonline.nl wrote:
> On 27 jun, 09:29, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>> Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 27, 6:09 am, The Natural Philosopher <a...@b.c> wrote:
>>>> W.A. Sawford wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008, rbwinn wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 26, 5:05� am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48� am, rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 7:27�pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Well, if no one proved it, then it was not proven.   All you have done
>>>>>> is to say it was proven without showing any proof or anyone who is
>>>>>> suppsed to have done it.  Atheists have said they have proven all
>>>>>> manner of things.  Almost always it turns out to be something some
>>>>>> individual atheist put together that sounds good to other atheists.
>>>>>> Robert B. Winn
>>>>> I wasn't going to get involved in all this (unless it's Friday, which it
>>>>> isn't) but I can't stand it any longer (sigh).
>>>>> 'Atheists have said they have proven all manner of things.'
>>>>> Well, what exactly have they claimed to have proved, and which atheists
>>>>> have claimed it?  Atheists don't actually need to 'prove' anything,
>>>>> because there is not a shred of evidence that god exists in the first
>>>>> place. The onus is not on atheists to prove the non-existence of god any
>>>>> more than the non-existence of the ravening bug-blatter beast of Traal.
>>>> Completely wrong. The concept of God is not a scientific hypotheis, nor
>>>> a fact.
>>>> So it can't be proven or disproven.
>>>> Its simply a shorthand for 'all the wide and wonderful stuff we cant get
>>>> a handle on; and feel scared by' more or less.
>>>> Atheism isn't so much denying His existence, nor yet keeping and open
>>>> mind on the subject (agnostic) its merely sidestepping the whole mess as
>>>> something one can simply do without.
>>>>> Show me some real evidence and I'll think about belief. Although actual
>>>>> evidence would of course remove the need for belief in the first place...
>>>> That's the whole point. Belief is a state of mind that has utility. Its
>>>> a little bit of Wise-ardry. Headology.
>>>> Wise-ards understand that believing in something is an action, not a
>>>> statement about its existence, or lack thereof.
>>>>> Wendy
>>> Your "god" is yours.  Different people have more or less
>>> anthropomorphic ideas of gods.  And the claim wasn't so much that your
>>> god of gaps was disproven (that would be a misnomer, as you're
>>> suggesting god is the stuff we don't know), but the literal biblical
>>> god is provably false.  The most obviously wrong points would be the
>>> age of the universe, origin of species/types, and a world-wide flood.
>>> There are lots of other smaller details that are contradictory to
>>> reality as well, but could more easily be argued as lack of knowledge
>>> by transcribers.
>> Nonono.
>>
>> Even the biblical god is not disproveable.
>>
>> Since and omnipotent intelligence is totally capable of fixing
>> everything in the world so it LOOKS a billion years old.
>>
>> What you have essentially is the current'scientific' view wich projects
>> time lines back to a divergence at the point of the big bang, and the
>> creationist view which simply truncates them what - 60000 years ago? -
>> and scribbles 'God' over the truncation.
>>
>> Both explanations - neither are really theories - demand one
>> supernatural event. IN one case its the presence of a supernatural
>> active intelligence, in the other its the breaking of symmetries in a
>> non sentient somewhat mechanistic universe.
>>
>> The former appeals to some, the latter to others.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Al- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>>
>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
> 
> Netiher appeals to me.
> The big bang theory supposes an early universe that is comprised
> within it's own schwarzschild radius. Hence that universe was a black
> hole.

Not sure that follows: you have to presuppose that the laws of nature 
predate the universe, wheres they may simply be two sides of the same 
coin. Along with time itself, which is a way of measuring things anyway. 
Not necerssarily and absolute thing that predates the Big Bang.

As usual recursion gets you. You ant talk about things outside of a 
space time energy universe from within a space time universe using the 
language of the space time universe: at best all you can say is 
'everything started HERE'. and put a dot in a space time map.




> If it was a black hole then, it is a black hole now.

There was no then.

> Current theories simply ignore this for no appearant reason.

You dont apprecaite the extreme difficulty of the problem. Current 
theories are vastly simplified for popular consumption. I know JUST 
enough to know that its a lot more complicated than that. But sadly not 
enough to be able to pass any real understaning along to you.

Other than to say something trite like 'the nature of the event that 
took place to create the Universe, is not something that the current 
universe is capbale of recreating'. Which says very little more than 'we 
don't do trans universe science: we only do intra universe science,and 
this is where it appears to stop'.

The most important practical function of philosophy is to draw lines 
that limit the applicability of methods and ways of thinking to problems 
suitable for such: It is the greatest mistake of the half educated to 
extrapolate concepts beyond the limits of applicability.


> Until someone explains me why
> I will distrust current theories.

Very right and proper attitude IMHO.

Remember this is 'edge of reason' stuff. Not a done deal. The 
mathematicians are looking at classes of functions which are *not 
incsonsistent* with what seems to be the very early days of the 
Unvierse. Well early microseconds I suppose. The 'act of faith' here is 
to assume that even at this point some sort of order was there, rather 
than random chaos: the god myth recognises that issue as well..the 
Jewsish Mystics were not stupid, just handicapped by a lack of language 
and access to the data we have.

If you take the active principle out of Genesis, it doesn't read too far 
from a modern scientific description, except the times are all wrong.

The poinst of agreement are that there was a formless void, and then 
there was an event, light (energy) and chaos resulted, and order arose 
out of chaos.

The anthropocentric view would have it that this was created explicitly 
for teh benefit of mankind, eraher than the more atheistic and less 
anthropocentric view that mankind is a simple end result down one 
particular chain of events, and that in a different Universe Man 
wouldn't be there to comment on it anyway.

It's the arrogance of the average Christian to presume that God made the 
world for his benefit: Just as it is the humility of the atheistic 
scientist to assume that mankind is juts a minor footnote to the hitsory 
of the universe, and is no more necessary to its continued existence 
than Nike sneakers.



>