XPost: alt.politics.libertarian, talk.politics.misc   
   From: nospam@example.net   
      
   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.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)