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

Kai Henningsen (
21 May 1995 18:43:00 +0100 wrote on 18.05.95 in <>:

> 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

Well, if you read my posts carefully, you will see that I mean with this a
phenomenon just like all the other phenomena that science examines. Feel
free to propose another term for it.

> 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.

Hmm ... the most friendly interpretation of this is that you haven't
understood what this is all about. Instead of explaining it all again,
I'll simply point to the thread as it is. It's explained there. Several

> *PHENOMENA* please.

Of course.

> 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.

Umm ... exactly how is this a lack of understanding the German language?
In German, the singular is "Ph€nomen", and the plural is "Ph€nomene".
That's an a-umlaut in there.

Also note that I got that word right _most_ of the time. Please argue how
this makes it "not just sloppy typing".

> Let us not confine ourselves to one temporary little cult's main
> asset. Try finding the divine entities in the religions of the

I wasn't. I just used it as an example because I happen to know it quite

> Validate one, you validate all.

That's my argument.

> Unless, of course, you are a supporter of one faith.

Me?! ROTFL. In case you hadn't noticed (I thought it was quite obvious
from my posts, and even spelt out several times), I'm an atheist.

> Sir, the basic concept of "god" defies reason.

You'll have to explain this to me. You might start by telling what you
assume that "basic concept" to be.

> Perhaps, if we cured this "god" thing, we would also have safer
> drivers.
> A spinoff benefit which might encourage someone to attempt it.

Well, yes, but that would need people to act rationally. Too much don't,
whether they endorse some god or not.

> My main point, sir, is I read this post expecting a little
> sci., instead, I heaved a little sigh.

Well, that may show a lack of understanding your own language ... :-)

> 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.

If you (I assume you're reading from sci.astro, as a sci.anthropology type
should not have any problems understanding this stuff) obviously can't
understand this, how can you expect them to?

If you're interested, I'm reading this in


Bang: major_backbone!!kai
## CrossPoint v3.02 ##