[geocentrism] Re: Invitation
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 14:57:14 +0200 (CEST)
Philip M
Once again you delight me. Very nicely reasoned. I am especially sympathetic
here.
From philip madsen Fri Sep 7 23:00:08 2007
I look forward to his response but don't hold your breath. He know s he will
get creamed! He has no time for people who say 'God did it' but has plenty of
time for those who say 'first there was nothing then it exploded and then
against all the odds out came life miraculously' Jack..
But Jack from outside the discussion, and allowing for no bias either way, I
can see that both points of view, are equally frustrating. But the rationalist
has the greater case. To a person who sees GOD as nothing, and we cannot
substantiate Him as being anything but "spirit", which to a physicist is
"nothing", then his, the rationalists, view of the universe as being
unexplainable by anything other than some strange and complex mechanism has to
be more realistic and more rational than it being designed and made out of
nothing by a fairy, even a super duper omnipotent fairy.
Philosophcally, having no bias, I can see, "God created it." and "'first there
was nothing then it exploded and then against all the odds out came life "
as equal value statements... But as a physicist, I see it as imcompatible
opposites.
However, without having ever read Dawkins, I can bet you are oversimplifying
the evolutionist position as regards the big bang. The universe did not come
out of nothing. It was/is/will be always there in some form, which in physics
could be some form of energy cycling process. This is a quite rational view. At
least it has to a rationalist , more substance than our resorting to a
spiritual Supreme being, based upon no evidence whatsoever, and on faith alone
to explain existence. If you kept throwing God at me in support of creation as
opposed to the rationalist explanation I proposed for existence, I would be
justly excused for being annoyed. You would be and are being un-scientific.
Your correct approach would be to offe a separate discussion on "Is there a
Supreme Intelligence called God." To which Dawkins or any other rationalist has
the right to decline, or if he has the grace to seek, accept.
We cannot rationally mix the two subjects together..
Philip.
Paul D
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage.
http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/unlimitedstorage.html
Other related posts:
