Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"....a title con, again.

John McCoy (
Thu, 18 May 1995 19:46:34 GMT

In article <>, Kai Henningsen ( writes:
> wrote on 06.05.95 in <>:
>> In article <>, (Kai
>> Henningsen) wrote:
>> > Not quite. If God exists _and_causes_no_observable_phenomena_, then
>> > science can't tell us about that. If he _did_ cause such phenomena,
>> > science _could_ tell us about it.
>> >
>> > The interesting part is that religions often _do_ claim that he causes
>> > observable phenomena ...
>> No, I'm afraid you are still missing the point. Science _could_ tell us
>> about it it God _did_ cause such phenomena, IF AND ONLY IF, there existed
>> an absolute set of unambiguous parameters to define God. That criterion
>> cannot be met, therefore the experiment you have proposed is meaningless.
>> Whatever phenomena you are studying are simply natural phenomena without
>> the definition of God.
>Well, if you argue from the premise that God isn't a natural phenomenon,
>then of course that's where you end.
Sir, there is no such animal as "natural". Like "god", it is a
term without a referent. The cosmos is. Science is a tool for
describing, cataloguing, manipulating and surviving in the cosmos
as it is, not as we would like it to be.
In other words, science is a pragmatic tool, a tool which
handles some subset of reality. The only science which deals with
concepts like gods, fairies, elves, golems, ghosts and "nature"
is the barely respectable "science" of abnormal psychiatry. This is
only nearly a science as one of the prime conditions for real
scientific work, the ability to experiment, is rightly forbidden.
"god" isn't a natural anything, it is a noise, like a gunshot,
and it does about the same harm.
>If, on the other hand (as is, I'd argue, the only proper way), you begin
>such a hypothetical examination by saying "these are the phenomenons
*PHENOMENA* please.
That is not just sloppy typing, which I am as guilty of
as evryone else, it is a lack of understanding of the history of
your own language.
Anyone want two memorandas?
>attributed to God", then you should be able tom devise a set of parameters
>explaining what God is and does - if, of course and as is currently
>happening, your conclusion is not that you don't need any sort of God to
>explain your phenomenon.
>Let's get a little more concrete.
>The Bible (to take only one family of religions) contains tales about
>numerous interactions that should
>be approachable by science, if they only
>happened where scientists could look into them - such as speeking, burning
>bushes, suns standing still, seas parting, angels appearing, people
>getting resurrected, and so on.
Let us not confine ourselves to one temporary little cult's main
asset. Try finding the divine entities in the religions of the
Indian continent. Or the complex faiths of the early Mediterranean.
Or the Viking mythos.
Or is the concept of a hairy, illiterate thundergod too silly
for a scientific thesis?
Sir, the difference between Odin's ravens and Christ is barely
visible to the inquiring mind. The difference between Apollo's
meat-eating horses and choirs of angels is imperceptible.
Validate one, you validate all.
Unless, of course, you are a supporter of one faith.
In which case sciecne, indeed reasoning itself, becomes a waste
of effort.
>The whole reason people talk about God being outside science is because
>all these phenomena never seem to happen anywhere they could be
>scientifically examined - which is why many people (including me) conclude
>they don't happen at all.
>However, assuming there _was_ something you could call "God", there's no
>reason why these things _should_not_ be easily observable, except if he
>intentionally tries to make things difficult. There's no reason God
Sir, the basic concept of "god" defies reason.
Reason is totally seperate from the "god" things.
"god" things, and, by extension, "god" people, do not recognize
reason, and are therefore unreasonable.
"god" things are matters of faith.
Faith is something which happens only in a human mind, unless
you are talking about faith in the sense of trust. My cats have a
deep and strong faith in my ability to protect, feed and house
them. They trust me. But that kind of faith is easily shattered,
easily lost, and has to be constantly reinforced. The unreasoning
faith in a "god" type thing is something we really should be
investigating as an aberration in the Human psyche. It is like the
ability we have to believe that physics has no hold on *ME* when I
drive. It even has the same consequences.
Perhaps, if we cured this "god" thing, we would also have safer
A spinoff benefit which might encourage someone to attempt it.
>not easily be an examinable thing.
My main point, sir, is I read this post expecting a little
sci., instead, I heaved a little sigh.
(Wow, am I funny)
(That was sarcasm, at my own expense.)
Please try to keep "god" things to the aberrant psychology
newsgroups, like alt.madasa.banana and rec.mind.slowly, and off of
the ones with sci in their titles.
Thank you. John.
>Bang: major_backbone!!kai
>## CrossPoint v3.02 ##

John A. McCoy
Compuserve: 100442,2775
BT: +44 (0) 1344 305796
"Hey, it is not my spellling, it's my inability to touchtype."
John's favourite excuse.