Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"....a title con, again.
28 May 1995 08:07:12 GMT

In article <>, says...
> wrote on 18.05.95 in
>> In article <>, Kai Henningsen
>> >( writes: wrote on
06.05.95 in
>> ><>:
>> >> In article <>,
>> >> Henningsen) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > Not quite. If God exists _and_causes_no_observable_phenomena_,
>> >> > science can't tell us about that. If he _did_ cause such
>> >> > science _could_ tell us about it.
>> >> >
>> >> > The interesting part is that religions often _do_ claim that he
>> >> > 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
>> >> an absolute set of unambiguous parameters to define God. That
>> >> cannot be met, therefore the experiment you have proposed is
>> >> Whatever phenomena you are studying are simply natural phenomena
>> >> the definition of God.
>> >
>> >Well, if you argue from the premise that God isn't a natural
>> >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
>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
>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
>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 ##