Re: 4 prohumanist continued
From: Franz Heymann (notfranz.heymann_at_btopenworld.com)
Date: 01/22/05
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- In reply to: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Next in thread: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Reply: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 09:21:54 +0000 (UTC)
"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote in message
news:41F17E1C.9080405@ak.net...
> Daniel T. wrote:
> > In article <41F16793.3020406@ak.net>, david <dgordon@ak.net>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Daniel T. wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <41F09942.8080501@ak.net>, david <dgordon@ak.net>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"david" <dgordon@ak.net> wrote ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" wrote ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"david" wrote, among other things ...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Can science create an oxygen molecule out of nothing?
> >>>>>>>>God can.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>A myth can't create anything. All you have
> >>>>>>>are claims. Claims-claims-claims, and
> >>>>>>>nothing to show for it -but- claims.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>Then present a valid counter argument that disempowers my
claims. You
> >>>>claim to want open discussion but you don't answer questions
posed.
> >>>
> >>>First present a claim that has power.
> >>
> >>I claim that God created the universe and all life within it. God
has
> >>the power that science lacks.
> >
> > Yes, you claim that, but it has no power. You claim that God has
power,
> > but your actual claim does not. Make a claim that has power, and
then
> > maybe someone will present a valid counter argument that
dis-empowers
> > your claim. Until, then you have nothing but empty words.
>
> Perhaps, according to your standards, my claim has no power.
You hit the nail on the head.
> That is
> because you won't consider the possibility of the existence of an
all
> powerful creator/creative force.
If you can put enough flesh on your hypothesis to produce a prediction
for the outcome of an experiment which might support or negate it,
please do so. If not, there is no place for you in sci.physics, in
which case you would save a lot of scorn being poured on your head by
going away.
Or do you relish that experience?
> >>A question then. How did the universe create itself?
> >>
> >>And a related question: who/what created the universe and all
within it?
> >
> > What do you mean by universe? The definition I use is "all that
exists
> > or is postulated to exist."
>
> Works for me. However, I would add all that once existed. Put
another
> way, the definition of universe is all that was, is, and will ever
be.
> The beginning, the end, and all that is in between.
>
> Again, the question. How did the universe create itself?
The usual way to counter that question is to ask who created the
object which created the universe.
The second answer is that the Universe has existed for as long as time
has existed.
The third answer is thet physics does not presume to know the answers
to all questions. That is why it is distinct from religion in being a
live discipline.
> why did the universe create itself?
Perhaps it was cirious to see if it would succeed in doing so?
Franz
>
- Next message: Franz Heymann: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Previous message: Franz Heymann: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- In reply to: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Next in thread: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Reply: david: "Re: 4 prohumanist continued"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|