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

"Wally" wrote in message
...
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.

Your celebration is premature!


Your self-confidence is truly admirable!



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:

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?

What part of "get a clue" precludes the possession or expression of an
opinion?


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

I enjoy epistemological discourse. Why are you spending so much time
slavering in this thread?


Excellent dissertation, Wally!

I'm surprised you can recognise it as such.


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!!!

If you're trying to imply that you've been trolling me with your drivel,
you'll have to do better than that - as I said, I enjoy discussing this
particular subject matter.


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!

You're still lacking the clue, Donal. At no point have I said that we
shouldn't try to understand it - just that statements like "the universe is
cyclical", "the universe started with a big bang all by itself", "god
created the universe" are without adequate foundation. The notion that any
one of these can be classified as even approaching an "inescapable
conclusion" is a joke.


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

"Wally" wrote in message
...
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?

What part of "get a clue" precludes the possession or expression of an
opinion?


Am I allowed to express my opinion without incurring your disapproval?


Yes .... or.... No?


You seem to take a very strong exception to my opinion.




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

I enjoy epistemological discourse. Why are you spending so much time
slavering in this thread?


Excellent dissertation, Wally!

I'm surprised you can recognise it as such.

Why? I'm aware that we are ignorant!




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!!!

If you're trying to imply that you've been trolling me with your drivel,
you'll have to do better than that - as I said, I enjoy discussing this
particular subject matter.

So why do you feel the need to resort to personal insults?




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!

You're still lacking the clue, Donal.

Thanks for the personal insult! Ad Hominem attacks are not usually required
by people who are capable of reasoned debate.
This isn't the first post where you have had to resort to a personal insult
to buttress your point of view.


At no point have I said that we
shouldn't try to understand it - just that statements like "the universe
is
cyclical", "the universe started with a big bang all by itself", "god
created the universe" are without adequate foundation. The notion that any
one of these can be classified as even approaching an "inescapable
conclusion" is a joke.

Why are you still trying to engage me in a logical discussion? I was under
the impression that you and Jeff were sooooo pleased with your intellectual
superiority that you had consigned me to the "lunatic" bin!!!


Regards


Donal
--

"Wally" wrote in message

| What on earth are you slavering about? He who makes the claim has to back
it
| up.

H-m-m-m-m-mm.... consider that statement Wally

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!"?

Wally if you believe that statement why should I interfere with your
beliefs?


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??

I've actually taken such a passage with Capt. Crunch, Seadog Brunhilda and
the crew on mornings while smoking a blunt of excellent BC bud.... are you
telling me I wasn't there?

|
| You say god made made the universe?
|
| Prove it!

I don't know who made it .... but he should be given a major holiday and
recognition.



| 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!

I know bears like honey and bees will never know why....

CM

"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, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" 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"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In fact,
without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would not be able
to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology creates the wealth
that allows people to have the disposable income to afford your "art".


Regards


Donal
--

"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, on reflection, your post deserves a serious answer.
So here goes....

You seem to be suggesting that we know so little about our environment that
we shouldn't even bother to seek answers.

Let me quote you.
" Ultimately, the data that we have, compared with the data that we think
is
still out there, is laughably small - it's statistically insignificant. "

Then you say :-
" 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"

If we all agreed with with your reasoning, then we would be still stuck in
the dark ages. We would not engage in any scientific research because the
task (gap in our knowledge) was so huge.

You depend on the innovations of scientists in your daily life. In fact,
without modern technologly, it is quite possible that you would not be able
to indulge in your passion for art! Modern technology creates the wealth
that allows people to have the disposable income to afford your "art".


Regards


Donal
--