XPost: alt.society.liberalism, alt.fan.michael-moore, alt.politics.liberalism   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: gn779631@cox.net   
      
   On 7/16/2010 2:04 PM, 5594 Dead, 727 since 1/20/098 wrote:   
   > On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 09:35:20 -0700, 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.   
   >   
   > Of course we don't know.  But if there is an involved god who caused   
   > it and who is posing as a moral and intellectual guide for humanity,   
   > wouldn't he have explained it all to us?   
      
   There you go again, to quote the second-worst president in history. You   
   are defining a god in narrow terms just so you can take a swipe at the   
   concept.   
      
   What he is saying is, if there is a god he exists whether you believe in   
   him or not. And just because all or most of the human images of god are   
   mistaken also does not serve as a contraindication of his existence.   
      
   >   
   > "Gawd magicked it" may be emotionally reassuring for some, but it is   
   > utterly intellectually sterile.  It isn't an answer; it's a cut off   
   > point at which people are invited to stop considering the matter any   
   > further.   
      
   And theories like the Big Bang theory are not?   
      
   Let me explain why you're off base here.   
      
   You treat all belief in a deity as if every one of them is the same.   
   There are literally hundreds of thousands of religious groups in the   
   world and there are enormous differences in perception of god even   
   within each one. So, your proclamation that "Gawd magicked it" to   
   describe everyone who might believe one of the creation stories is just   
   as, to use your term, "intellectually sterile" as you claim they are.   
      
   And a lot of people who believe in a deity of some kind do not use god   
   to cut off consideration of a matter. Many use their belief as a   
   starting point. Others use their belief to feel empowered. Yes, there   
   are some people who wield it as a club and use it to cut off all debate.   
   But most of those who don't seem to have any real faith to speak of. If   
   you look at Republicans as examples of typical believers in god that's   
   unfair to those who believe in god.   
      
   > Now, I think it's unlikely in the extreme that we will know anything   
   > about what exists (if anything) "outside" or "before" the universe.   
   > But, lacking any evidence to the contrary, the supposition that some   
   > being with infinite powers did it just strikes me as a lazy shortcut.   
      
   Like the "lazy shortcut" you just used to declare that all people who   
   believe in god do so to escape personal responsibility?   
      
   Do you expect everyone to become a scientist and study the origins of   
   the universe?   
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >>   
   > We aren't all that sure they apply INSIDE the universe.  They work for   
   > the rough existance we have at our quotidean level, but at the   
   > subatomic level, there is no order, no form, and we're not entirely   
   > sure there is time.  At the quantum level, the universe disputes the   
   > existence of any guiding intelligence.   
      
   It's declarations like the above that prove that you're just like the   
   fundamentalists, only your faith is atheism.   
      
   What is the difference between your statement above and proponents of   
   intelligent design proclaiming that a god must have created the universe   
   because there's no evidence otherwise?   
      
   Even within our limited knowledge, our concept of intelligence still   
   allows for error or unexpected development. Please tell us what quantum   
   knowledge we possess that "disputes" the existence of "guiding   
   intelligence?"   
      
   Did you know that unitarians believe that the creator just created the   
   universe in the beginning and lets it operate on its own. Therefore not   
   everyone who believes there was/is a god thinks he continues to "guide"   
   anything. What does that that do to your statement above? Well, it   
   suggests that "guiding intelligence" is not even an indicator of the   
   non-existence in god.   
      
   I am happy as an atheist. But I don't feel the need to prove to others   
   that god doesn't exist because I can't do that. Neither can you no   
   matter how hard you try.   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > All of quantum mechanics is descriptions of probabilities within   
   > chaos.  I just read a popular article the other day in which a   
   > physicist is saying that gravity doesn't actually exist as it's own   
   > entity, but is rather a side effect of an entropic decay of space and   
   > time.   
   >   
   > In other words, gravity came rapidly after the big bang, when the   
   > universe began to decay.   
      
   And his story has credibility why? Because you choose to believe it. He   
   can't possibly offer proof. What evidence does he provide to support it?   
   More importantly, what evidence did he disregard to come up with his   
   "conclusion?"   
      
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > A matter of faith, in other words.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)