XPost: alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.misc   
   From: nospam@example.net   
      
     This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,   
     while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.   
      
   On Wed, 1 May 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:   
      
   > On 5/1/24 5:53 AM, D wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:   
   >>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <68hx.1805@g5t8x.net>   
   >>>> wrote:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,   
   >>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred   
   >>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would   
   >>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in   
   >>>>> a sea of speculation.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury   
   >>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries   
   >>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not   
   >>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info   
   >>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"   
   >>>>> groups.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within   
   >>>> Standard Physics   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>  Um ... no. Get over it.   
   >>   
   >> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why we   
   >> have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as such, we   
   >> currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would just result in   
   >> god being reduced to something in the world.   
   >>   
   >> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined as   
   >> such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are being   
   >> _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe the   
   >> world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" the   
   >> world, it is impossible to prove him.   
   >>   
   >> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily towards   
   >> there being no god however.   
   >>   
   >> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god,   
   >> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers as a   
   >> kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.   
   >   
   >   
   >  GIGO ... Garbage IN = Garbage OUT. Reason and math   
   >  require solid axioms, and theists often start   
   >  assuming some castle in the sky is a solid axiom.   
   >   
   >  Like any language, math can be used to help find   
   >  organize and confirm facts - or be used to spin   
   >  episodes of Harry Potter and Hobbit adventures.   
   >   
   >  As usual, alas, 'the faithful' are only interested   
   >  in a sub-set of facts, a sub-set of reason, only   
   >  that which seems to confirm their beliefs. I've   
   >  learned not to argue with them very much, just   
   >  give them hints to where they can find better info.   
   >  They will have to go there on their own.   
   >   
   >  As to what the OP said about Poe - he really IS   
   >  worth looking into ... a remarkably bright and   
   >  intellectually diverse guy and in some ways ahead   
   >  of his time. BUT, as said, his cyclic Big Bang   
   >  theory was nothing but a notion - there were no   
   >  hard facts at the time, he did not reason it out   
   >  from evidence ... it just "seemed reasonable".   
   >   
      
   Amen! ;)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)