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

If you would ask yourself the questions that I posed, then "God"
becomes an inescapable conclusion.

Why does it become an inescapable conclusion?

Ask yourself the questions.

You asserted that it was an inescapable conclusion, and I'm asking you to
explain why you think that. I asked myself the questions years ago, and
didn't come to the same conclusion that you did.

What conclusions did you reach?


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?




I've considered all the available options.

What makes you think that the real explanation has been covered by
any one of the available options?

Nothing!

So, what you're effectively saying is that there are a bunch of ideas, we
have no idea if any of them are correct, so we'll just pick one anyway.


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

You're kidding!

No! Why do you question me?




I'm quite happy to consider alternative explanations.
Do you have an alternative to offer? I'd really like to hear it!!

Of course not! What a preposterous notion!

Ah!




You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?

See above. See below.


There isn't much above, is there?





I bet that you find it much easier to criticise ...

I haven't criticised - I've stated my opinion and I've questioned some of
the reasoning presented here. You don't seem to have responded to very
many
of my comments. Why not?

Time????




... than to formulate a real opinion.

What, exactly, is a "real opinion", Donal?


If you want to disagree with me, then you should have the balls to put
forward your own beliefs.

I already have. The fact that you have responded to virtually none of my
questions in earlier posts in this thread leaves me wondering if you even
bothered to read them.

My apologies. I *do* read all posts to the ng. However, I don't have
enough time to post all the answers that I would like to.




I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.

I agree with that conclusion.


Regaards

Donal
--

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?


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.


You don't have any hypothesis at all, do you?
See above. See below.

There isn't much above, is there?

There was...
----------
Do you have an alternative to offer?
----------
Of course not!
----------


I already stated that I don't think we humans have
very much knowledge of the universe and that I don't think we're in a
position to go making proclamations about its origins.

I agree with that conclusion.

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'?


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

"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
--

Donal wrote:

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

A Teensy-weensy bit!

Not at all.


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.

Please do so.


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?

I have already stated (more than once) that I don't think we have enough
data to draw a viable conclusion. If we did have, this sort of thing
wouldn't be the on-going subject of debate that it is.


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"????

What?!? If the conclusion is 'insufficient data', then *no* other conclusion
can be drawn! If we don't know, then we *don't* know - any attempt to imply
that we do know is little more than fantasy.


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

"Wally" wrote in message

| Not at all.

Don't treat arrogance as a disability.... it's a positive character trait
when tempered with reason.

CM

Capt. Mooron wrote:

Not at all.

Don't treat arrogance as a disability.... it's a positive character
trait when tempered with reason.

I try not to be arrogant unless I'm also right.


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

"Wally" wrote in message

| I try not to be arrogant unless I'm also right.

That's simply defeatist.... be arrogant when you are wrong..... make the
buggers work for their victory! ;-D

CM

Donal wrote:

"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!


Don't be modest, that's my province!

Cheers

MC insisted: Don't be modest, that's my province!

Heaven help we should have two modest men posting here! There won't be room
enough on the floor with all that lying about...

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

Hey! At least it's not wet paint!

Cheers

katysails wrote:

MC insisted: Don't be modest, that's my province!

Heaven help we should have two modest men posting here! There won't be room
enough on the floor with all that lying about...