Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 14:44:15 -0700 From: Keith Whaley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Basic "naturalism" could be simply defined as accepting only the > physical universe as real, disallowing any external "deity". > This is the presupposition. > > God is eternal and without cause, not a creation.
Oh, he was a "creation" alright. Absolutely. Of people who needed a supreme being to feel comfortable. Being the total master of your fate is totally scary! If a people don't have a supreme being, they invent one... Ancient history is replete with that happening. Gods all over the place.
Again a presupposition that is extended to all without presenting evidence. Comparative religion classes are full of problems. Among them is the most basic of fallacies, the hasty generalization. All we ask for is evidence.
> The point of discussion is the origin of the observable universe.
Yessir!
> The current "big bang" theory and the new ideas attempting to supplant it > look to the eternality of matter/energy. They depend on something from > something else, not from nothing. (Or is there another presupposition > that I'm not familiar with?)
Yeah, some fool wants us to believe that all the material the big bang scattered all over, well, it all came from some verrrrry, very small "singularity." Isn't that right? That's a wholly presumptive presupposition indeed! <g>
All we ask for is evidence.
Forty years ago the "big bang" was pretty-much and unheard of thought.
In another forty years it will be abandoned for something else.
Not testable, not repeatable, not verifiable, and certainly not subject to disproof.
The only thing that makes it "scientific" is because it is a concept
that can work with observed data. More simple conjecture than workable theory.
<snip>
keith
Collin
