🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1d9lk2INN73@agate.berkeley.edu> emarkp@soda.berkeley.edu (E. Mark Ping) writes:
>In article <1d9fa5INNoc6@chnews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>}The existence of physics belies the existence of the gods.
>
>Wait a second.  Do you think you can elaborate on that conclusion?

Not only that, but can it get into Phys. Rev. Letters?

On this whole subject, I think we can improve the SNR with the following
policy:

Anyone serious about claiming that science implies that there is or is
not God should be asked to provide references in _Phys. Rev. Letters_ since
a physical fact of this magnitude is sure to be reported there. Failing
this, the aspiring physical (a-)theologian should be asked to publish
his result there first. Then there will be little argument what _is_ and
_isn't_ demanded of the scientist's beliefs.

The relation between God, or even the idea of God and physics is important.
But truth told, science does not answer this question, and the more respectable
religions have learned that God did not make this one so simple. A successful
religion is for more or less obvious reasons necessarily persistent over many
human generations and accessible to, and pertinent to the majority of humans.
The explication of the actual relation of God to physics is going to fail to
be part of a successful religion for these three reasons, even if through the
religion's action some believers can become aware of the truth.

Later,
Andrew Mullhaupt

P. S. In view of the mechanics involved Olympic sport _curling_ it might
be better for sci.physics to seriously consider Sportsmanship vs. Geology.