From: freethinker@mymail.com   
      
   On 25.07.22 20:13, Peter W. wrote:   
   > Yikes!!   
   >   
   > a)  What is known of the Universe may be extrapolated backwards in time. All   
   a telescope does, whatever type of radiation it observes, is look backward in   
   time.   
      
   Well, yes and no. A Telescope does indeed see a situation as it was when   
   the light (or radiation) started it's travel towords it. This does not   
   mean that what we know of the unviverse can be extrapolated backwards in   
   time. Or at least it's not the same things: if it can be done, it needs   
   much more than a telescope.   
      
   > b)  It is a pretty linear extrapolation based on the data observed to follow   
   distributed energy back to a (probably) single point.   
      
   It may be a non linear extrapolation: we don't know. We are still trying   
   to find out.   
      
   > c)  And, this really is basic, established science based on direct   
   observation of specific evidence that also is repeatable.   
      
   The observations are repeatable, the conclusions are only based on   
   "best" models of which we are not certain at all.   
      
   > d)  CERN has told us a great deal on how matter is formed, how it holds   
   together, how it behaves and more.   
      
   CERN cannot tell us anything, it doesn't speak. The results of the   
   experiments done at CERN have shown us what basic building blocks matter   
   has and how they interact with one another, but these are far from being   
   complete and telling us "more" than that. They even raise more questions   
   than ansqers and this is the beauty of physical research: there's work   
   to be done tonorrow too.   
      
   > e)  It turns out that even this is predictable and repeatable. Making it   
   also basic science.   
      
   What is?   
      
   > f)  However, we still do not know what we do not know.   
      
   Exactly.   
      
   > g) Clarke's Third Law:  Science, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable   
   from magic.   
      
   Was, is no longer.   
      
   >   
   > William of Occam suggests that one should not needlessly multiply entities.   
   >   
   > See this as a multiple choice problem:   
   >   
   > 1.  There is a "GOD" in the Christian/Muslim/Jewish model, complete/replete   
   with all the various trappings assigned thereto.   
   > 2.  There is a Prime Mover that is self-aware.   
   > 3.  There is/are forces that is/are responsible/resulted in the 'big bang'.    
   Said force/forces need not be self-aware, intelligent, self-directed, nor   
   anything else other than (a) Force/Forces.   
   >   
   > Which is the simplest explanation?   
      
   I am not advocating the existence of a God nor his non-existence. I am   
   with ohg who says you just can't prove either way, so this whole   
   discussion is just repeating your own conviction and nothing else. It is   
   futile to try to convince other people of your convictions, especially   
   with "evidence" you can't have because there is just none. A lot of   
   people have tried before and it hasn't worked yet.   
      
   What I am saying is that you clearly never studied any physics at a   
   University. Had you done that, you would have remembered very well the   
   moment the professor told you "We don't know if the "Big Bang" ever   
   really occurred. It's a theory, but as of right now it's the best theory   
   we have" (and that was about 15 years ago, when the neutrino didn't have   
   a mass).   
      
   In other words ohg is right when he writes "scientists don't know for   
   sure, they think it is this way".   
      
   >   
   > There are those who believe that fetal recapitulation is proof of   
   God/Intelligent Design.   
   > There are those that believe just the opposite.   
   > Point being that evidence-in-a-vacuum leads to a potential for   
   misinterpretation. As, both cannot be correct in the above example.   
   >   
   > Writing for myself, I am much happier believing that I am more-or-less   
   responsible for my state in this world - and not living at the whim of some   
   probably malicious, certainly capricious, demonstrably not benign 'creator'.   
   >   
   > Peter Wieck   
   > Melrose Park, PA   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)