Subject:
|
Re: Holy crap! Four out of five scientists claim....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 15:53:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
719 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
Science will never come up with the answer period. Any speculation
about the origin of the universe is pure flattery. Even if Science could
prove that the entire universe began with all matter compressed into a
sphere the size of a golf ball, it still can offer no explanation as to
where matter came from in the first place.
|
Well, that’s as much a statement of faith as anything I’ve heard you make,
and it borders on raw superstition. You claim that science will never know
the answer solely on the basis of what science now knows. That’s equivalent
to the statement, a few centuries ago, that we’d never be able to see
microscopic objects because we could not currently see microscopic objects.
In fact, numerous “where did it all come from” solutions have already been
posed, so science is certainly able at least to address the question. The
problem is that, currently, we don’t have the tools to verify our hypotheses.
All in good time.
But even if science doesn’t ever resolve the question, that doesn’t mean that
God is the answer. To assume that God is the answer is a fallacy on numerous
levels.
|
I have to admit that I am surprised we are even debating this because I thought
that there was consensus here.
WRT to the origin of the universe, you say that “...we don’t have the tools to
verify our hypotheses. All in good time.” Are those tools even theoretically
possible?
That aside, let’s go back to the very beginning of the universe. Stuff comes
from stuff, but where did the first, initial stuff come from? It is an
illogical, infinite question, completely outside the limitations of logical,
finite Science. To even suggest that Science has a prayer (figuratively:-) to
even address such a question is sheer cheek in my mind, and this has nothing to
do with the status of our current technological abilities.
Deists agree to let point 1 be “God”, and it seems to me that Science also needs
to let point 1 be something for which it has no explanation or any hope
thereof.
Throw me a bone here, Dave! I thought I understood this.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
