> -----Original Message----- > From: Marco Alpert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 17 February 2006 22:29 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy > > On Feb 17, 2006, at 2:19 PM, E.R.N. Reed wrote: > > > Some scientists are humble -- and honest -- enough to admit > they don't > > know. > > Some say, "we don't know; it could be God." > > And some people (scientists and otherwise) say, "We don't know, but > > whatever it is, it can't be God." Which is not a humble position. > > And frankly, in either case, only the "We don't know" part is > a scientific position. In both cases, the rest is an > expression of that person's personal belief system. But not science. >
I'm not so sure of that. It is possible to state scientifically that we know some things did not cause it, and it would not be arrogant to say so. For example, we know for sure that it did not congeal from the curried fart of a two-horned unicorn riding a bicycle, and I can say that in all humility. Possibly there are some people in the world who believe it did, but there is no requirement to postulate the existence of such a thing in order to explain the beginning of the universe, if it had a beginning, and it would be scientifically incorrect to do so. In this respect God is no different from a malformed, flatulent monoceroid equid on wheels. Bob
