 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> (...) jumping in here again with this brief blurb-- (URL) are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' - 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Here's how: The omniscient, omnipotent being always was, by definition. Irrational? You bet. (...) Are you suggesting that this stuff is in some way simple? (...) Though we've met a few times, you don't really know me that well because I'm (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) I hear that! I'm going to do some snipping to clean up a bit around the thread. (...) <snip> (...) Not at all. I'm just seeing common ground. (...) But you will probably always be irrational though you strive to be rational. You are a closet (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Actually, it didn't really happen in a point in time, AFAIAC. Time began at that point. In fact, there's a good chance that "time" didn't "begin" (or stabilize) for "eons" (read in femto- or pico- seconds), just as our physics framework (as we (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Occam's Razor - the onus is on YOU to explain how an omniscient being just came into being, then created the universe. And if that being was created by another, who created *that* being (ad nauseum)?... Why must you insist on making things (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) I'm not sure that it will be forever outside the scope of science. The more we learn, the more we discover. Take Brendan's sealed-closet example. And let's suppose we can walk around the closet. Well, we know whatever's in the closet has to (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Now that's unfair:-) I am NOT arguing for creationism. Science is about explaining things. All I'm saying is that what happened pre Big Bang is inexplicable. (...) Agreed. (...) Thank you. That is entirely my point. Therefore any explanation (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) I have avoided using the word "proved" for that very good reason. (...) However in the absence of the alternate theory then the evidence supports the one theory. Which is why the Big Bang Theory is now commonly named as such whereas it used to (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
(...) Well, I'm trying to be strictly accurate there. It's not that the evidence proves the conclusion, it's that the evidence doesn't contradict the conclusion. If we had (for example) two conflicting ideas about the origin of the universe (the Big (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote: --snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) I believe that many predictions of the Big Bang theory have been verified which is why I say there is an overwhelming body of evidence for it. There is admittedly far more (...) (18 years ago, 24-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
