"Wally" wrote in message
...
Donal wrote:

The fact that you seem to
think that I will if I 'ask myself the questions' is arrogant.

Correct! I am arrogant.

You are a bit arrogant too, aren't you?

Am I?

A Teensy-weensy bit!




I'm trying to conduct this conversation from a scientific
viewpoint.

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?

I don't see how the notion that god created the universe can be arrived at
by scientific means - how that can be an 'inescapable conclusion'. There
is
no presentable, sharable evidence that supports the contention that god
exists, or ever has. Without evidence for god, the argument's busted -
it's
no more scientific than an untested hypothesis.

Rubbish! I proposed three alternatives.

1) God created it.
2) It is endlessly expanding and contracting
3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of
"matter" and "anti-matter".

I can prove that two of them are impossible. That leaves the third option
as the only viable answer.

If you have an alternative proposal, then you should put it forward.
Simply stating that I am wrong is the behaviour of an idiot. I know that
you are not stupid, so why don't you offer us some evidence to back up your
position?

Is it compatible with the notion of 'god did it' being an inescapable
conclusion? If we don't have enough information to draw a conclusion other
than 'insufficient data', then how can any other conclusion be
'inescapable'?


Think about "beyond reasonable doubt"????



Regards


Donal
--