From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 8:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   > On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >> I would suggest you get the book "God, the Science, the Evidence" by   
   >> Michel-Yves Bollore, Olivier Bonnassies.  The first half of it he does   
   >> exactly what you would like to do with the same points.  Very well done   
   >> and it is not a difficult read.  For me, this book steeled the issues.   
   >> He uses research from atheists and agnostics often and then builds upon   
   >> it.  I wish I could provide some quotes and more details, but I had a   
   >> full knee replacement two days ago and I'm suffering right now, sorry.   
   >> They also have a chapter with 100 quotes from some of the giants in the   
   >> fields saying the exact opposite of what Vincent Maycock does.  They get   
   >> into a little bit of how materialists stop debate with tactics like   
   >> Maycock uses, and why that crap don't fly anymore.   
   >   
   > In a funny coincidence, I am reading that book right now - I'm about   
   > three quarters of the way through it. You say it's an easy read but I   
   > disagree; there is a lot of interesting stuff in the book but I am   
   > actually finding parts of it quite tedious - too much repetition of   
   > the same stuff, reminds me of a certainposter here:)   
   >   
   > The book is divided roughly into two halves with the first half   
   > focusing on science and what the authors see as the shortfalls there   
   > are. They give a very detailed history of development of cosmology   
   > over the centuries. I was not aware of how much opposition there was   
   > from the scientific community in recent times towards the Big Bang as   
   > scientists totally opposed to any possibility of the universe having a   
   > finite beginning. Thery similarly opposed the idea of an eventual "big   
   > crunch" as that too, in the opinion of the authors, meant a finite   
   > universe with a beginning though I'm not entirely sure that that is a   
   > valid argument. I was not aware how much both the Soviets under Lenin   
   > and the Nazis went to such extreme lengths to eliminate any suggestion   
   > of a finite universe, or that eliminating the concept played such a   
   > major role in the Nazi oppression of scientists.   
   >   
   > The authors draw out another good point from this; we hear much about   
   > the rejection of science by religious believers but we rarely hear the   
   > other side of that coin, just how much opposition there is among   
   > scientists towards anything that might in the slightest way support   
   > religious belief not on any scientific grounds but just in their   
   > ideological belief that *everything* must have a materialist   
   > explanation. Neither I nor the authors are suggesting that is the case   
   > with *all* scientists but there is a lot more of it than I actually   
   > realised.   
   >   
   > The authors offer as a counterbalance to this a long list of   
   > scientists (including a number of Nobel Laureates) who believe that   
   > many of the things we have found in science do point towards some sort   
   > of something beyond materialism though they are honest that most of   
   > those scientists are reluctant to identify that 'something' as God.   
   > They examine Einstein and Godel in detail and conclude that both of   
   > them were inclined towards something that could be described as   
   > religious but both rejected any form of organised religion.   
   >   
   > The authors summarise the main arguments presented in this part of the   
   > book as:   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > A single valid proof is enough to disprove the hypothesis of a purely   
   > material Universe But cosmology allows us to establish two separate   
   > proofs:   
   >   
   > o The Universe had a beginning.   
   > This we know, most notably from thermodynamics and the   
   > Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, which is based on Hawking and Penrose's   
   > work on initial singularity.   
   >   
   > o The laws of the Universe are very favorable to human life, and the   
   > complex, minute fine-tuning of these physical laws is extremely   
   > improbable, as demonstrated by the anthropic principle.   
   >   
   > The two proofs are even stronger because they are totally independent   
   > of one another.  Firstly and fundamentally, the fact that the Universe   
   > had a beginning and that its structure and laws are improbable are two   
   > distinct facts with no relation between them. Furthermore, their   
   > results are not correlated because they were determined by independent   
   > methods. This double independence reinforces their value as proof,   
   > because the falsity of one has no impact on the truth or falsity of   
   > the other. This significantly lowers the probability that the two are   
   > simultaneously false.   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   > I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it   
   > is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least   
   > Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think   
   > materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against   
   > this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression   
   > which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists   
   > accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)