Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Comments interspersed.
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:07:33 +0100 From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
Fascinating thread.
Yup. Sure is.
Unfortunately all discussions of origins fall short of being "scientific". None of them can be stated in such a way as to allow for either measurable proof (scientific method) and hence no disprovability statement. They're not quantifiable, repeatable, or testable. Neither special creation nor Sagan's "the universe is all there is" principle have any real foundation in testability.
I don't think you understand what 'scientific' means. While it may not be possible in practice to test some of the theories empirically, they are _in principle_ falsifiable, and it is certainly possible to show that they are logically consistent and follow from premises which _are_ testable empirically. Most other origin stories, myths or 'theories' are not falsifiable even in principle, let alone in practice; this is why 'creation science' is a contradiction in terms.
[some good arguments snipped as being too long for inclusion.]
Getting something from nothing is as inconceivable to the naturalist (who has no place for a creator to intervene) as the existence of anything without cause is inconceivable to the special creationist (who always looks for purpose).
In fact it was so-called naturalists (whatever you mean by that) who _did_ conceive of something from nothing, so you are quite wrong there. And creationists do indeed conceive of something without cause - God. So you are quite wrong there too.
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.
Amazing that all the characteristics of these beings are so incredibly similar!
Just like the "world history" of any peoples, almost anywhere on the globe, is incredibly similar to the Christian bible's version.
That alone blows one's mind away! <g> Very interesting!
Floods, pestilences, the whole thing...
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>
How come the initiation point isn't the most sparsely populated part of the cosmos? All of it ought to have gone outward from that point source, and created a BIG spherical vacancy, no?
I mean, I've never heard of that discussed.
Other than a few quite thin spots here and there, the universe is reasonably well scattered, and more or less evenly spread out.
And all observed bodies are moving away from each other, at an ever increasing speed... Hmmm. Lots of study time being spent figuring the source of THAT energy...
That was _some_ impetus, to last all these 38 billion years, or whatever it is believed to be now.
That mysterious (to me) "center void" ought to be getting bigger and bigger, no?
If not, why not? Is stuff still being "created?"
Ahhh, enough for now.
keith
This paradox should challenge the mind to be working through the issue rather than simply accepting any statement as the resolution of the issue.
--
Cheers, Bob
Good points,
Collin
