William said:
I suppose an ontology dependent in that way on epistemology is
quite interesting though.
It is :)
Things are even weirder than they might seem at first sight though. For
example, consider the planet (or Kuiper belt object) Pluto. Suppose
that there's an isolated valley in New
Marvin said:
Are both sets of heterophenomenological (whew!) evidence/claims equal
w/respect to internal consistency, consequences of acceptance or
denial, and so on?
I don't think they are equally internally consistent, but that's not the
real key point. The heterophenomenological isn't for
On Sat, Jan 18, 2003 at 11:29:31PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
Why are people's feelings about God not such evidence?
Can you specify a procedure that anyone could use to falsify the
existence of God?
I can specify a procedure that anyone could use to falsify the existence
of Pluto.
--
Erik
on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
William said:
Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument
fails.
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some
people say they experience it.
There might only be
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Richard Baker wrote:
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some
people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of
evidence for God.
Are both sets of heterophenomenological (whew!) evidence/claims equal
w/respect to internal
on 13/1/03 10:18 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So do you accept the mind as real, without any empirical evidence for its
existence?
I think Marvin already addressed this in his post, so 'what he said'.
William said:
Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument
fails.
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some
people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of
evidence for God.
Also, the idea that something doesn't exist if
William said:
Since there is empirical evidence for consciousness, your argument
fails.
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness - some
people say they experience it. There's exactly the same kind of
evidence for God.
Rich
GCU Entirely Serious
There's only
on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness
It's easy for you to say that... :)
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
Putting
William said:
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness
It's easy for you to say that... :)
It's certainly easier for me to say that than to type it!
Rich
GCU Zombie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 10:04 PM 1/15/03 +, William T Goodall wrote:
on 15/1/03 8:23 pm, Richard Baker at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's only heterophenomenological evidence for consciousness
It's easy for you to say that... :)
And AFAIK there's only herpertophenomenological evidence for ophidian
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote:
That's a fair statement. Nothing I've said should be construed to make the
arguement that God has been proven to exist.
True enough. What I've perceived myself as arguing against is chiefly an
idea that reason, properly used, somehow naturally leads
Marvin wrote:
Ugh. _Anthem_ convinced me that Ms. Rand probaby isn't worth reading
further.
I have to agree. Rand just does absolutely nothing for me. Of course, I've
never been able to make it more than a few pages into any of her novels.
There's just something about them that I can't
At 01:55 PM 1/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Marvin wrote:
Ugh. _Anthem_ convinced me that Ms. Rand probaby isn't worth reading
further.
I have to agree. Rand just does absolutely nothing for me. Of course,
I've never been able to make it more than a few pages into any of her novels.
There's
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define what real
is, of
course you can refute arguments
I wrote some stuff about _The Night of January 16th_, and Kevin Tarr
replied:
You could have waited three days to tell us about it.
Kevin T.
Now you've spoiled it.
Ahem, sorry. I apologize for spoiling the ending without inserting spoiler
space. I guess I'm just not used to insterting
At 04:58 PM 1/13/2003 -0600, you wrote:
I wrote some stuff about _The Night of January 16th_, and Kevin Tarr replied:
You could have waited three days to tell us about it.
Kevin T.
Now you've spoiled it.
Ahem, sorry. I apologize for spoiling the ending without inserting
spoiler space. I
on 11/1/03 5:00 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If one goes over the top with a proof, then it is easy to refute the proof.
If it is so easy, why haven't you managed to do it?
--
William T Goodall
Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog :
William G said:
If it is so easy, why haven't you managed to do it?
Could you repost your putative proof for the benefit of those of us who
missed it the first time round?
Rich
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote:
For example, if one wishes to argue that only things for which there is
solid empirical evidence need to be considered real, one finds much in the
trash heap; including many things believed in by empiricists. The classic
one is self-awareness. If the
--- Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote:
For example, if one wishes to argue that only
things for which there is
solid empirical evidence need to be considered
real, one finds much in the
trash heap; including many things believed in by
At 01:24 PM 1/5/2003 -0500 Jim Sharkey wrote:
I would agree with that. I was going to ask that very question. JDG is
very much a Christian Conservative, but I don't imagine he views the Big
Bang as screed. I'd be interested in hearing his opinion.
Nope, the Big Bang makes sense to me.
Then,
At 08:02 PM 1/6/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
That is, given a group of people who favor lower taxes, smaller
government,
restrictions on abortion, general public ownership of firearms, a strong
national defense and scientific research and proclaim themselves to be
conservatives - and a
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Deborah Harrell wrote:
When those articles have no measurable consequences,
yes.
puzzled look
Um, I was referring to particular core beliefs (like
Jesus is the Son of God), which can be neither
proven nor measured. Derivative beliefs (and I'm
using my own
on 8/1/03 8:45 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In the real world nobody refuted
on 8/1/03 12:23 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reggie Bautista wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
As I
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:18:56 +
on 8/1/03 12:23 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reggie Bautista wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 01:20:25PM -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
word is a 'cop-out'. Yet, I personally have complete and unshakeable faith
that God exists and we are here for a purpose. My spiritual and religious
beliefs may not make sense to some people, but that's not their concern --
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:40:02PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when empirical
observations are made.
But Jon was not making empirical observations when he said we were here
for a purpose.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:40:02PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Perhaps, But, one does not see any evidence for purpose when
I wrote (somewhat facetiously):
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
Jon Gabriel replied:
A google search for the term 'Mulder's Razor' turned up lotsa slash fan
fiction on the X-Files. I don't recall the term being used onlist and
don't have it saved in my
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In the real world nobody refuted the argument.
But, the problem with this argument is that, if you define
At 12:50 08-01-2003 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
A google search for the term 'Mulder's Razor' turned up lotsa slash fan
fiction on the X-Files. I don't recall the term being used onlist and
don't have it saved in my archive -- can anyone explain?
A search of the Great Brin-L Archive revealed
Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
In the real world nobody refuted the argument.
But, the problem
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives
-Original Message-
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01
-Original Message-
From: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message -
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent
Jeffrey said:
*nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply
there's another, UK version of the phrase..?
Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can
be discussed. In other words, exactly the opposite meaning.
Rich, who thinks that must make US-UK
From: Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 13:32:07 -0800
-Original Message-
From: Julia Thompson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 01:20 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Problem
Richard Baker wrote:
Jeffrey said:
*nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply
there's another, UK version of the phrase..?
Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can
be discussed. In other words, exactly the opposite meaning.
Rich,
At 05:38 PM 1/8/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
Jeffrey said:
*nod* that's what I understand it to mean. Julia seems to imply
there's another, UK version of the phrase..?
Over here, if you table something, you put it on the table where it can
be discussed. In other
At 10:42 PM 1/6/03 -0500, William Taylor wrote:
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God.
Because if that is done, the WB
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 20:00:00 -0500
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him so much
that he died
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Julia Thompson wrote:
I think they have that show on Fox; it's called Joe Millionaire.
Uh, no, I believe there *are* full length mirrors on that show. And
probably more than one bathroom.
Technically true, but when Keisha and I found ourselves unable to avert
our eyes
From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 22:40:58 -0600
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder
why
the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I*
see
In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . .
That's supposed to be we're, not were . . .
And if it was not a mistake..
Runaway! Runaway!
Werewolves are writing reality
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . .
That's supposed to be we're, not were . . .
And if it was not a mistake..
Runaway! Runaway!
At 03:56 PM 1/7/03 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2003 1:29:37 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With you and me, were one-tenth of the way there . . .
That's supposed to be we're, not were . . .
And if it was
At 18:20 06-01-2003 -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives?
I'd be more than happy
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Reggie Bautista wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen,
master of the
In a message dated 1/7/2003 2:52:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Werewolves are writing reality programs!
Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement?
You didn't read all the way to the bottom, did you?
William Taylor
---
It aint over till
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2003 2:52:23 PM US Mountain Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Werewolves are writing reality programs!
Oh, like that wouldn't be an improvement?
You didn't read all the way to the bottom, did you?
I did, but I decided to go
At 12:43 PM 1/7/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 01:03 PM 1/7/03 -0600, I wrote:
At 12:43 PM 1/7/03 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Proving God Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 22:42:22 EST
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Kevin Tarr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Verzonden: zondag 5 januari 2003 17:41
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
It's not the job of scientists to prove the Big Bang - it's their job
to disprove it!
I don't know why
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Richard Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Verzonden: zondag 5 januari 2003 21:15
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Onderwerp: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
I wish the likes of Scientific American would stop saying things like
More proof for the Big Bang when
Jeroen said:
What's the difference?
If you have proof for something then it is absolutely, incontrovertibly
true. If you have evidence for something then it's just probable.
Rich
GCU Degrees Of Certitude
___
Ronn! wrote:
The problem with many attempts (NOT necessarily Dr. Townes's) attempts to
unify science and religion is that they basically assume one is
completely true and then try to make the other one fit into that framework,
regardless of how much they have to hammer on it or trim pieces
on 6/1/03 2:32 am, Julia Thompson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nick Arnett wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
...
The thing is, it's not possible to prove the Big Bang. How would one
even go about trying to
William G said:
Of *course* God exists.
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the
imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to
disprove the existence of God?
Rich
GCU Did I Miss Something?
Erik said:
Why waste time trying to disprove it anyway? Might as well spend your
time trying to disprove the existence of invisible, undetectably pink
unicorns.
Heretic! ...wait, were those *flying* invisible, undetectable pink
unicorns? I advise that you consider your answer carefully if you
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:01:18PM +, Richard Baker wrote:
William G said:
Of *course* God exists
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:19:33PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why waste time trying
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual partons. :-)
Dolly family?
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 05:42:29PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
Actually, in this case, it was the damn invisible virtual
I wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives?
Reggie Bautista
:-)
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:54
At 12:49 AM 1/5/2003 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote:
Pretty much exactly my point.
I'm just sick of conservatives giving voice to luddite morons and pretending
it to be virtue.
Given the existence of the 1st Amendment in this country, please provide a
detailed memo to, quote, conservatives on how
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him so much
that he died on a cross for his sins so that he might have eternal life
before he wasted all that effort!
JDG
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 08:00:00PM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote:
The poor dears! Someone should have told them that God loved him
so much that he died on a cross for his sins so that he might have
eternal life before he wasted all that effort!
That was kind of silly of her, wasn't it?
on 7/1/03 12:20 am, Reggie Bautista at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote:
Of *course* God exists.
Haven't you ever heard of Mulder's Razor?
William T. Goodall replied:
It was proved otherwise last year on this list.
As I recall, that proof was refuted. O Jeroen, master of the archives?
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
It wasn't refuted. It was objected to, and protested at, and even
disbelieved - but not refuted.
Are you
Erik Reuter wrote:
That was kind of silly of her, wasn't it? Omniscient, omnipotent beings
should have more sense than that!
Oh, man, you've got it all wrong. Omniscient, omnipotent beings turn a
blind eye to genocide while helping football players get touchdowns (at
least according to
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
Behalf Of Richard Baker
...
Our recent troubles may have been an unpleasant reminder of the
imperfection of the world, but surely they weren't bad enough to
disprove the existence of God?
Troubles sure
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God.
Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a
reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in a
house with only one
In a message dated 1/6/03 8:27:16 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God.
Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with
a
on 7/1/03 2:52 am, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: BRIN-L [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
It wasn't refuted. It was objected
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leave the possibility open please. Do not prove the nonexistence of God.
Because if that is done, the WB will probably replace Seventh Heaven with a
reality show where 20 pro wrestlers have to live on camera together in
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why
the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see
most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm
ranting about, but seems to actually
But creationists and their ilk are either ignorant Authoritarians or lying
Authoritarians. Further, I believe they are a great danger to our freedoms
and liberties as long as they are given voice and can inform policy
decisions. We have had to rely heavily on the courts to protect us and I
At 10:40 PM 1/6/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
Thats really a good question John. I mean really good. I myself wonder why
the most visible face that conservatism presents, that is, the one *I* see
most regularly, most clearly, not only tolerates the kind of wackiness I'm
on 7/1/03 4:48 am, Kevin Tarr at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich asked why Amerikka seemed to have such issues while the UK doesn't. I was
trying to find this stat, I only found indirect quotes: the US has 40% (seems
high) religious participation while the UK has only 2% (seems too low).
I
Robert Seeberger wrote
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/poist.shtml
That conservatives tolerate, and even openly encourage such crap is
the main reason I would never vote republican.
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think he speaks for all
conservatives? It *is* named an
Jim said:
And BTW, in the spirit of fairness, since atheists often say we can't
prove the existence of God, is it completely wrong to point out that
scientists can't prove the Big Bang?
It's not the job of scientists to prove the Big Bang - it's their job to
disprove it!
Rich
GCU Science Is
At 03:24 PM 1/5/2003 +, you wrote:
Jim said:
And BTW, in the spirit of fairness, since atheists often say we can't
prove the existence of God, is it completely wrong to point out that
scientists can't prove the Big Bang?
It's not the job of scientists to prove the Big Bang - it's their
- Original Message -
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives
Robert Seeberger wrote
http://www.newsmax.com/adv/poist.shtml
That conservatives tolerate, and even openly encourage
Jim wrote:
And BTW, in the spirit of fairness, since atheists often say we
can't prove the existence of God, is it completely wrong to point out
thatscientists can't prove the Big Bang? I certainly don't agree
with Mr. Poist, but is it truly an unfair question? I don't know that
it is.
It
Adam said:
Background microwave radiation, the red shift and many others that I
can't recall due to being tired from driving all day yesterday all
match the expected theories regarding the age and probable origin of
the universe.
The other important observation that the Big Bang model
Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: Jim Sharkey
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think
he speaks for all conservatives?
I would never accuse Gautam or JDG of following this crowd, but I
think Gautam and JDG are in the minority in this regard.
I would agree with that. I
Jim wrote:
You and Adam make some fair points in that regard. I was more
speaking from a philosophical standpoint than from one of having back
up for your claims. While you both point out some interesting
evidence, it doesn't amount to proof at this point.
There's proof and there's proof.
Does this person actually have any kind of following? There are plenty of
liberal wackos, too...
It doesn't seem quite fair to hold him up as a voice of conservatism.
--
Nick Arnett
Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
Adam wrote:
In any group, there's a huge range of individual attitudes. I
could make a similar statement about christians, muslims, or Star
Trek fans. Especially Star Trek fans.
hehehe. I was talking from my personal experiences, of course, and I've met a fair
number of seriously obnoxious
Adam said:
There's proof and there's proof. As Mr. Baker pointed out, the Big
Bang theory accounts for just about everything we've observed so far
(caveat mine, just in case) about the universe.
Well, sort of. The Big Bang theory isn't one theory but really a
family of theories. The basic
Kevin said:
I don't know why, but your statements look completely wrong. I'm sure
there are just as many scientists who work towards fitting new data in
with old theories to make the case for the big bang even better.
The thing is, it's not possible to prove the Big Bang. How would one
even
Jim said:
In regards to atheists being agreeable, I am afraid I've found my
experiences with them to be far less so.
I suppose this might be a selection effect - the obnoxious ones are more
readily visible as atheists than the more pleasant ones. The same isn't
quite true of religious people,
Richard Baker wrote:
Rich, who further supposes that he's one of the obnoxious
atheists...
Not to my knowledge. I'll be watching you closely from now on, though. ;-)
Jim
___
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the
- Original Message -
From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: A Problem For Conservatives
Robert Seeberger wrote:
From: Jim Sharkey
Pardon my ignorance, but who is Samuel Poist, and why do you think
he speaks
Jim Sharkey wrote:
Robert Seeberger wrote:
So no, I dont think that is a fair question. Its like coming home
after a hard day at work and having your wife claim you did nothing
all day.
Interesting analogy. Especially given your background. I suppose
you might take his position a
Julia Thompson wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
However, my wife might argue that holding down the fort all day
with three children under age seven is at least equally difficult
as working all day. :-)
That *is* working all day! :)
Are you sure you and my wife haven't already met? If I've heard
- Original Message -
From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: RE: A Problem For Conservatives
And on this subject, is anyone here familiar with Dr. Charles Townes and
his
talks on science and Christianity? He's speaking
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
