Donal wrote:

Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that
the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt?

What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back it
up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you to
run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond
with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim that
Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the
onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and
thereby disprove my assertion??

You say god made made the universe?

Prove it!


Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?

Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.


I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific
evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to
support my views.

You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Well said, Wally. That was particularly articulate, given our usually
standards.

But don't you think you could have strung him along for a little longer?



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

Why do you place the onus on the believers? Are you suggesting that
the non-believers should be given the benefit of the doubt?

What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back it
up. If I claim that the moon is made of green cheese, is the onus on you to
run around trying to disprove it, or would it be valid for you to respond
with something like, "Yeah, sure it is, Wally - prove it!"? If I claim that
Captain Crunch sails a ship made of cornflakes on an ocean of milk, is the
onus on you to painstakingly search the entire universe, draw a blank, and
thereby disprove my assertion??

You say god made made the universe?

Prove it!


Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?

Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.


I think that it is very strange that you will not give any scientific
evidence to back up your position. I've repeatedly given evidence to
support my views.

You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

Jeff Morris wrote:

Well said, Wally. That was particularly articulate, given our usually
standards.

Thank you.


But don't you think you could have strung him along for a little
longer?

Gotta keep these things fresh! He had gone into parrot mode, so it was time
to gaff him and land him - I want to see if he fillets himself or dries in
the sun.


--
Wally
www.forthsailing.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk

It's also pretty obvious that you have tits.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 27 May 2004 09:57:58 -0400, "Vito" wrote
this crap:

"Donal" wrote

What other options are there? WE either evolved, or we were created!

Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive. We (Adam and Lillith)
may
well have been created by the process we call evolution. According to the
Bible Eve was cloned.


I don't know what bible you are reading. In the King James Version,
there's no person named, "Lilith." And it's pretty obvious that Adam
and Eve were created by God.




Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Joe" wrote:
(Bobsprit) wrote:
Tell me of anything that begin to exist without a cause boobsie.

And do not be unreasonable.



Just as I figured!

You cant can you?.

Nope, he can't! Great job, Joe!

LP


Your the big mouth no-it-all but can not come up with one simple
single example. You call what your little mind can not intake magic.
Your the one with the very limited mind and a very un-limited mouth.

Joe


Josie, you simply don't get it. Perhaps, like many folks, your mind
refuses
what it can't comprehend.
You seek "cause" for existence. You seek action and reaction. And you
have,
along with many other ignorant people, created a magical force behind it
all,
because you don't have the true answer.
That's fine, if somewhat limiting. We each inhabit our own small worlds,
but I
see that yours is unusually small indeed.

RB

Jeff Morris wrote:
"Donal" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:
Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.



How?

Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am
suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain
the Universe or mankind.




Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the

possibility

that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.


In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the
possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an
absolute act of faith.

That isn't true.


We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do
you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced
that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute
act of faith?

Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith?

The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You
constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to
back up your position.

For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an
absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to
support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with
absolute faith.


I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a
justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it
difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views.




If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is

justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?


You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong.
You're simply asserting your faith.

Perhaps you should look at your own posts????

I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the
accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting
that I am wrong.






I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.



I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence as
a way to bolster your faith?

Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion?

Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position?

Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of.



Regards


Donal
--

I am
suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain
the Universe or mankind.

So, failing to comprehend eternity, you buy into mythology.
Oh.

RB

Navigator wrote:



Donal wrote:

"Navigator" wrote in message
...

Donal

check these out:

http://universe.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/darkenergy.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html



I've read the links. However I don't see how they are at odds with the
concept of my third option.


Did you like the ideas -do they make sense?


They look like incomplete theories that are designed to plug holes in
other theories.

Some of the argument is *very* weak. Take the following :-

"If the vacuum is trying to pull the piston back into the cylinder, it
must have a negative pressure, since a positive pressure would tend to
push the piston out. "

That is just plain nonsense! The piston is being *pushed* into the
clyinder.




3) It was created in a single event which resulted in equal amounts of


"matter" and "anti-matter".



Do you think that there is a fourth option?


Yes, dark matter too. Maybe even anti-dark matter but I don't know if
that is in any way required by a coherent cosmology.

I don't have a problem with the concept of dark matter. It still fits
in with my third option.



Regards


Donal
--

Wally wrote:

Donal wrote:



Why should non-believers be given more credence than believers?


Get a clue, Donal - you're out of your depth.

Does that mean that I shouldn't have an opinion - or that I shouldn't
express it?



You don't seem to understand that my position is the opposite, in its very
nature, of yours. I'm not making a specific claim that might stand to be
substantiated by evidence. I'm making no claim about the origin of the
universe, and I'm not invoking some imaginary creator. What I'm doing is
critiquing our knowledge system, and thereby critiquing such outlandish
claims as those we have seen in this thread regarding the supposed origins
of the universe. I'm right outside of your box, Donal, and your desire for
me to 'present evidence' tells me that you still haven't noticed.

Why then, have you made so many contributions to this thread?




I'm saying is that the evidence presented by those who seek to state how the
universe came to be is woefully inadequate. Once again, if not for the
world, then at least for you, I argue my case thus...

From the observations that mankind has made so far, the universe is
mind-bogglingly huge and exceedingly old. We can make highly detailed
observations of it, and draw incredibly accurate inferences concerning its
causal nature. However, we can only resolve to this sort of detail in a very
local area - Earth and its environs, basically. The rest of it is little
more than a bunch of dots in the sky. We're also attempting to extrapolate a
life cycle of this most ancient of entities, supposedly billions of years,
from a ridiculously small timeslice of - what - a couple of centuries? What
mankind is essentially doing is observing a speck of dust for a second, and
trying to describe what has happened on the whole planet for a year.

Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. And
here's the best bit - because we haven't actually observed the data that we
haven't availed ourselves of yet, we don't even know how much there actually
is!

In terms of the constructs of our own knowledge system - empricism - we are
damn-near absolutely clueless!

To sit here on our silly little speck of dust for a whole second, and then
try to state categorically - to draw an "inescapable conclusion" with regard
to - how the universe came to exist is stupefyingly pointless. Not only do
we know next to bugger all, we don't even know if we really *do* know next
to bugger all!

Excellent dissertation, Wally! I'm almost proud that my stupefying
pointlessness has prompted such eloquence - and such a large percentage
of your activity here over the past week!!!


Let me see if I understand you. Are you saying that we know sod-all
about the Universe, and therefore we shouldn't try to understand it?
That strikes me as being a bit defeatist!


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
"Donal" wrote in message
...

Jeff Morris wrote:
Belief in God should be an absolute act of faith.

Incorrect. Many religions demand absolute faith - which is quite
different.



How?

Most religions are based around a particular view of "God". I am
suggesting that there must be a God, because nothing else can explain
the Universe or mankind.

I still don't see the difference. I contend that it is impossible to prove the
existence of God, it must simply be an act of faith. That some religions
require additional acts of faith is beside the point.





Arguing for the
existence of God on scientific or logical grounds is accepting the

possibility

that someone could simply provide a stronger argument the God doesn't
exist.

True. However, if you have Faith, then you know that nobody will be
able to provide a stronger argument.


In other words, while you argue "scientifically" you will not consider the
possibility that you might be wrong. And yet you say that the is not an
absolute act of faith.

That isn't true.


We hold many opinions that we believe to be certainties. How often do
you see two people arguing about facts - when they are both convinced
that they are absolutely correct? Are they both acting on an absolute
act of faith?

Nonsense. While its true that ill-informed people argue over "facts," that is
not the same as a scientific proof.


Have you ever lost a bet? Were you acting on an absolute act of faith?

I don't see your point. You're claiming that presuming a conclusion as an act
of faith is proper scientific method. I claim this makes you not credible.




The funny thing is that your position is very much like a zealot's. You
constantly tell me that I am wrong, and yet you offer no evidence to
back up your position.

When did I tell you that you were wrong? I've only said that your opinion is
not evidence for something.



For example - you are trying to tell me that I am demonstrating an
absolute act of faith. The reality is that unless you offer evidence to
support your view, then you are behaving as if you were saddled with
absolute faith.

No. You seemed to tell me that you have faith that no one can change your mind.
Why should I even begin a serious discussion under those terms?

It is not my intent to destroy your faith; I'm only saying that faith and
science are two different domains. A cornerstone of science is having no
preconceived notions as to where the evidence leads. Faith is exactly the
opposite - it is the belief in something in the absence of evidence.



I have explained why I think that there must be a God. I've offered a
justification for my belief. People with absolute faith find it
difficult to offer a logical explaination for their views.

You offered your personal justification, but not scientific evidence.

Your absolutly correct that people of faith cannot provide a logical
explanation. I would not expect one. There is nothing wrong with this. Quite
the opposite, I think it is wrong to try.





If
you want to believe, fine - but don't try to prove that your faith is

justified.

I've been discussing the existence of God, not faith. Why do you think
that I shouldn't argue for the existence of God?


You're not arguing if deby the possibility that you might be proven wrong.
You're simply asserting your faith.

Perhaps you should look at your own posts????

I did look. Several times you've said that you didn't think there was enough
time for evolution to have created a thumb. I've asked you to provide evidence.
You then get all huffy and claim I'm a zealot.

The bottom line here is that your opinion, completely unsubstantiated, isn't
"evidence." The opinion of thousands of biologists and tens of thousands of
other scientists who have embraced evolution, has a bit more credibility than
your opinion.

By choosing the "thumb" as your focal point you have essentially said that the
mechanism of evolution is not sufficient to have created any life at all. While
the thumb is a rather interesting organ, it is not particularly complex or
unique. You're attempting to invalidate one of the greatest scientific
achievements of our age simply by saying, "I've considered this, and I don't
think it works."

Sorry, Donal. You're just wasting our time here.


I've tried to offer evidence! I've even tried to introduce the
accepted alternatives into the discussion. You are simply asserting
that I am wrong.

Evidence? did I miss something? did you reference any scholarly work?


I find it strange that people get so defensive when evidence is put
forward that suggests that God must exist.



I agree, why are you so defensive? Are you trying to prove God's existence
as
a way to bolster your faith?

Why do yo keep trying to turn this into a religious discussion?

Why don't you offer some evidence to back up your position?

I did. I offered the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences. Frankly,
I'm not the one discounting an entire field of science; I don't have to "prove"
evolution, thousands of others have already done that.


Stop acting in the manner that you (falsely) accuse me of.

Now that's a real low blow!