Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"
Gil Hardwick (gil@landmark.iinet.net.au)
Wed, 24 May 1995 01:31:50 GMT
In article <5mGVZWzEcsB@khms.westfalen.de>, Kai Henningsen (kai@khms.westfalen.de) writes:
>Well, it may not be the way they describe God, but it is the way his
>interactions with the known universe have been described throughout
>history. And science being what it is, such interactions are what it looks
>at for any phenomenon.
Who is they? The "known universe" of whom? Who's history?
If you chose to post to sci.anthropology, whatever follw-ups you
chose to set, you are required to identify the people you take up as
an example to support your argument.
Else just don't post such drivel here to start with.
>Why do you think that? It has worked with everything else, so why
>shouldn't it work here?
Examining only partial and inconsequential aspects has worked with
everything else? Therefore it must work with a Supreme Being??
I suppose you'll try to tell us next that examining only partial and
inconsequential aspects of German modern history works in having the
rest of us fooled into believing that you didn't really exterminate so
many Jews too, is that so?
Yours is no science, Herr Henningsen. It is all just the same fascist
propaganda we have come to expect from you throughout.
>Maybe you're still not quite getting what I'm thinking of. I'm not
>thinking of discovering yet another phenomenon that fools people into
>thinking of something supernatural. I'm thinking of the situation where
>there _is_ a God who _does_ interact with the world in an observable way.
>I'm kind of thinking of something like that burning bush giving demos and
>interviews. You know, what he would do if he existed and _didn't_ want to
>play hide and seek with us. Hard to claim that that's something your
>religion is _not_ about :-)
Religion, Herr Henningsen, is not defined by what the Christians find
written in their Bible.
>Of course, in this hypothetical example, the existing religions - each and
>every one of them - would have a hard time accepting that they were all
>wrong in several important points, which would undoubtably the case.
Of course it is hypothetical. The fact is that you have no evidence to
support your argument at all, do you, esle you'd be presenting it.
Please do elaborate in what way "the existing religions" are "wrong
in several important points". They all just make it up as they go
along, building in the process a discursive community in the effort
to keep track of it all. There are a few admittedly who chose to
reify the complex and shove it down our throats as concrete fact, but
the majority are far wiser than that.
>It's always been that way, and this question is quite central to them.
>However, for a religion claiming "only one god" (which several of the
>major ones do), it would be quite hard either to have a scientifically
>proven God exist which was not theirs :-)
Are you quite certain that it is the religion itself which claims
only one God, or a few fundamentalists and bureaucrats who work so
hard trying to contain it all within the idea of one God?
While tomorrow I can go out and invoke an entirely new one, no doubt
at all able to gather a flock around me in the process. No doubt too
that our resident Archbishop will call my competing congregation of
worshippers a "cult", while his little flock is not a cult at all, but
an established religion.
All I have to do to succeed, it would appear, is to avoid drawing too
much attention so as to avoid having your resident spooks roll up and
barbeque us all with their overwhelming firepower, and ensure that I
appoint worthy successors who will in time be accepted as to leading
an established religion too, and who knows, the title of Archbishop
into the bargain!
>I don't know. Maybe Galileo all over again, or maybe they would do some
>quick rearrangement to be able to claim that they had known it all along.
Well yes. What else? Anything to get out from under being dominated by
some fascist regime like the one you represent. Or worse, a no-life in
some dead boring bourgeois industrial capitalist suburb somewhere.
>I didn't claim anything different. You also can't prove the nonexistence
>of the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Ah, but that the Invisible Pink Unicorn cannot be seen around here
proves beyond doubt that my Invisible Pink Unicorn exterminator works
very well indeed.
Like all the scientismists out there, all I have to do is establish
the null hypothesis to prove that my technology is very effective
indeed. Invoke any entity you want, and darn tootin' we all gonna
refute it.
Having thereby won the battle, we will thereby qualify for even more
research funding so as to be in a position to defend ourselves once
again should the situation arise.
>I _did_ claim that if this God existed and was as active as these
>religious texts claimed, then we should be able to prove his _existence_.
>
>And I claimed that his existence is not necessarily unprovable.
>
>Of course, you can't prove him the religious way - this has been pointed
>out lots of times.
>
>> All, right, including the double negative (clearly a German mind at work).
>> :-)
>
>> Probably. Double negatives are very confusing in English.
No, double negatives not confusing in English at all. We can all see
full well from your refuge in such devices that all this is just a
whole lot of Germanic hot cock to start with
>I'm looking at this from a science point of view. Here I have a phenomenon
>that is (claimed to be) observable (that's how those religious texts are
>claimed to be possible). Now, observable phenomenons, natural phenomenons,
>same thing.
Well this here just proves it! Looking at the existence of God from a
"science point of view". The only thing scientific you will ever be
able to record is the reliable fact that I just invoked another God
from out of the same void we state quite clearly they all are.
All the rest is just the same unrelenting drivel we have come to
expect. Good thing it has gone back across to the folklore crowd.
|