 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus —David Koudys
|
| | | 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 —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I like this part: First, most of the traditional arguments for God's existence, from Aquinas on, are easily demolished. Several of them, such as the First Cause argument, work by setting up an infinite regress which God is wheeled out to (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I don't know that it's arrogant or naive, though it might be unjustifiably optimistic at the moment to call it "simple." Gould isn't saying that Hawking/Penrose will, like God, be magically able to terminate the regress; their intent is to (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I wish I could help you out, Dave! But I don't know jack about phones. And I'd have to brush up on painting staircases; I hear it's rail difficult. Well, if they ever arrest the regress, it would appear that their work would be able to be used (...) (18 years ago, 26-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus —Thomas Stangl
|
| | | | | I never said the explanation would be "simple". I simply state that adding a Creator is making it *more complex* than it needs to be. (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus —Timothy Gould
|
| | | | --snip-- (...) --snip-- (...) Bad example ;) It is very easy to explain pi in numerous simple and rational ways. eg. pi=4(1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 etc.) pi=( 16((1/5) - 1/3(1/5)^3 + 1/5(1/5)^5 - 1/7(1/5)^5 + ...) - 4((1/239) - 1/3(1/239)^3 + (...) (18 years ago, 26-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
