🚀 go-pugleaf

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, 5:05Â am, RobertL <robertml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 26, 4:48Â 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.
If it was a black hole then, it is a black hole now.
Current theories simply ignore this for no appearant reason.
Until someone explains me why
I will distrust current theories.
(though not as much as theological theories:-)

Peter van Velzen
June 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands