A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Science probably can either prove or disprove
the existence of God, if and when our scientific understanding advances to
the point that we can identify the concept.

Religions define their gods quite well.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.

You're grasping at straws here.
Probably because so much of your "scientific" training comes from
science fiction.

And you're a moron with an IQ of 40 who drools on his keyboard.


Nor does it disprove it.

Thank you for restating what I keep on saying.

You appear to be saying that God does not exist and that belief in God is
proof of a lack of intelligence. Since you've just admitted that science
cannot disprove the existence of God, that would appear to impeach your
intellectual credibility somewhat.


Evidence, however, is a rather more abstract
concept than proof.

This is weiser at his absurd best.

Are you saying that evidence is equivalent to proof?


Only if one pre-accepts the premise that the
occurrence of a highly improbable event is a matter of random chance would
this logic apply. On the other hand, if one posits the hypothesis that
because an event that has occurred is highly improbable, it is reasonable to
suspect some factor other than random chance is involved.

Just because it is improbable doesn't mean it is impossible.

No one suggested it was. Simple logic tells us that if it's improbable, it
cannot therefore be impossible. What does your inaccurate statement have to
do with anything?

If it occurs,
nothing changes.

Another logical failure. If something "occurs," there is, ipso facto,
"change."

If you are overly focused on the probability,

The question is whether I am overly focused or whether you are
insufficiently focused.

then you start
searching for other excuses for your lack of understanding.

Um...that's called "scientific inquiry." When one does not understand
something, one examines evidence and uses reason to come to a better
understanding.

If there is a
legitimate reason for doubting, the Bayesian approach is valid. What the
"intelligent design" advocates ignore is that there isn't a single roll of
the dice.

Incorrect. Intelligent design does not posit a single roll of the dice.
Nothing in the concept of "God" precludes active intervention in the process
or a long, complex "programming period" before the experiment is left to
run. The concept of Intelligent Design is little different than any science
experiment where the preconditions are created, the process set in motion,
and the results observed and tabulated. It merely posits that God works on a
somewhat larger scale.


less energy dense fuel than oil

The problem with hydrogen as a "fuel" is that is contains no energy
that wasn't put there by someone. It isn't a fuel, merely a means of
transporting energy.

It's both, technically.

It doesn't address an energy problem, only a
portability problem. There is still a requirement for a source(s)
of energy and the "hydrogen economy" conveniently ignores the
associated costs and problems. In the end, hydrogen is a way of
reducing the overall efficiency of an energy system. That's not
a solution.

That depends on what the problem is that you're trying to solve. If the
problem is one of energy availability, I agree. If however the problem is
one of pollution, then the energy expended in producing the fuel goes
towards the pollution budget of the system. If one can create hydrogen by
fracturing water with electricity produced by solar panels, then the
pollution budget may be lessened, if the production of the panels can be
kept "clean" too.

Since the major concern is CO2 and hydrocarbon emissions, the use of
hydrogen as a fuel, although less efficient than oil, provides substantial
pollution budget reductions, though at not inconsiderable costs associated
with producing the fuel.

It all depends on what we're trying to accomplish.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser