a0f4d965   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.michael-moore, alt.politics.liberalism   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: gn779631@cox.net   
      
   On 7/16/2010 1:13 PM, liberal wrote:   
   > On Jul 16, 12:35 pm, Bone China Blue  wrote:   
   >> In article<06edncXaLcPS9t3RnZ2dnUVZ_rudn...@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.   
   >   
   > Well, here's where your post falls on its face. "See"? What do they   
   > "see" that rational people miss? And how do they see what they "see"?   
      
   His post doesn't fall at all. Your assumption is that everything people   
   believe is based on some sort of hallucination. Prove that a god is   
   impossible and we'll believe you.   
   >   
   > BTW, some drugs that treat epilepsy will cure that "seeing". When   
   > "seeing" that evidence is a curable condition, kinda reveals that   
   > "evidence" to be only a delusion.   
   >   
   >   
   I assume you're an atheist and so am I. I simply don't believe there's a   
   god. Since you seem to be absolutely certain there can't be one, who's   
   to say that's not your mental illness talking?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)