4770e572
XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.michael-moore, alt.politics.liberalism
XPost: talk.politics.misc
From: gn779631@cox.net
On 7/16/2010 12:35 PM, Bone China Blue wrote:
> 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.
Well put. As a long time atheist, I object to the seeming need on the
part of many atheists to "prove" the non-existence of god. That's just
as annoying as a preacher trying to convince me that his one vision of
god does exist and it's the only one who could exist. No one knows or
ever will know, at least for the next several millenia.
>
> 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.
This is exceptionally well said. We only know what we know. And anyone
with a decent level of intelligence has to admit that our knowledge is
limited and that nothing is impossible outside of our tiny sphere of
existence. We haven't even traveled outside our solar system let alone
the rest of 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.
Exactly. Belief in no god is the same as belief in god. It's not based
on evidence.
>
>> 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.
>
I don't think there is any evidence either way. But it's all faith.
Atheism is a faith as much as belief in God.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
