4770e572   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.michael-moore, alt.politics.liberalism   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: chine.bleu@yahoo.com   
      
   In article <06edncXaLcPS9t3RnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@posted.carinet>,   
    "5594 Dead, 727 since 1/20/09"  wrote:   
      
   > Part of the gawd problem is that there IS no explanation provided for   
   > what came before.  Gawd is sitting in nothingness, and one day just   
   > decides to create the earth, bang!  THEN he creates the entire rest of   
      
   Your argument is meaningless. We don't know what is outside the universe or   
   even   
   if there is an outside. The expansion of the universe means expansion of the   
   measurement of the distance between points within the universe; there are   
   simple   
   mathematical models such that universe is contained within a unit sphere and   
   that our perceived expansion is simply a mapping of the unit sphere to itself.   
   You could just as well assume god is carrying a bunch of universe in a bag,   
   each   
   universe contained within a marble.   
      
   All our notions of existence involve a trajectory in space-time through   
   causally   
   linked events. Without that space, time, or causality, we cannot imagine what   
   it   
   mean to exist. We don't know if any of these apply outside the universe.   
      
   > Exactly so: we don't know.  If it makes you feel any better, I treat the   
   > "Big Bang" as a mathematical construct, and one in which a key piece of   
   > information is missing.  There was nothing, and then there was   
      
   Quantum mechanics already provides for the spontaneous creation of a particle;   
   the more energy or duration of the particle, the less likely it would occur. A   
   universe size particle is improbable but not impossible; given an infinite time   
   the improbable becomes inevitable.   
      
   > Nobody does.  But "god" is just a spackle job over that lack of knowledge.   
      
   If you assume the universe is objective, then the existence of a god is   
   independent of your belief or nonbelief of that god. The notion that you can   
   declare what a god is or isn't is inconsistent with the assumption of a   
   objective universe, which would make it inconsistent with the scientific   
   method.   
      
   > Well, that's just it; if you can't explain how the universe began, then   
   > complicating the matter by tacking on an omnipotent being is just a way   
      
   Not if that omnipotent being is real and did create the universe.   
      
   > of ducking the issue entirely.  "God done it" is a simple non-answer that   
   > does nothing other than allow you to pretend the universe has a purpose.   
      
   What if the universe does has a purpose?   
      
   > I don't rule it out.  But I also don't see any evidence of any gods in   
      
   Other people do see that evidence.   
      
   --   
   Damn the living - It's a lovely life.           I'm whoever you want me to be.   
   Silver silverware - Where is the love?       At least I can stay in character.   
   Oval swimming pool - Where is the love?    Annoying Usenet one post at a time.   
   Damn the living - It's a lovely life.                   We support you, Sarah.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)