Subject:
|
Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:26:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1363 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote:
> > Science doesn't need to answer question for which it doesn't have enough
> > evidence to address. According to the Big Bang Theory, one cannot ask what
> > caused the Big Bang or where the Big Band came from, because (according to the
> > theory), all scientific laws break down at the Big Band. One cannot ask what
> > came before because the question doesn't make sense.
First of all, let's address this "Big Band" issue. I don't have much fondness
for Lawrence Welk, but I guess Glenn Miller's okay. And Guy Lombardo? Don't
get me started...
> Therefore science cannot encompass everything. That stated, something must
> exist outside of science.
Not so fast! "Outside" is a dangerously tricky word in this context, since all
bets are off as soon as we exit the natural universe (ie., we have no basis for
making any one claim over any other regarding things "outside" the universe).
Something *may* exist independent of the universe, but we can't possibly have
any reasonable access to it. Even "intuitions" or "gut feelings" or "writings
on my heart" aren't sufficient, when you get right down to it.
> Let that something be God.
But even that statement is just assuming a conclusion based on non-evidence,
with no more weight than "let that something be me" or "let that something be a
magical ham and cheese sandwich." Since we can *by definition* have no evidence
of this hypothetical extra-universal phenomenon, it basically comes down to
aesthetic preference. One says, in essence, "it is preferable to me that God
(rather than some other force) is the force outside the universe," but that
claim has no more validity or verifiable likelihood than any other.
I've been searching but I can't find the thread in which you acknowledged that a
God consigned to ever-decreasing realms of scientific ignorance is indeed an
unworthy God. But that diminution is what you're doing here. It's worse, in
fact; you're drawing a line in the cosmological sand that God dare not cross.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
90 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
