MNb wrote on 08/06/10 at 09:26:04:

I dare say that three lost WC finals are a very convincing argument against a god.

Nfinity wrote on 08/06/10 at 03:36:26:

I am more of a contrarian or an indifferentheist.

MNb wrote on 08/05/10 at 20:10:20:


Just like general relativity, the Big Bang and Big Crunch are theories du jour. Funning thing about science and religion---science is about as solid as jello, but spirituality has served humanity well for thousands of years.

The Big Bang is scientific/religious dogma where the high priests of physics have decreed that the science is settled. Never mind that the Big Bang theory is the result of retrodictions i.e. instead of being a predictive model it has, been, to a large extent, a theory that is being altered to fit the data.

How do you explain dark matter (Which is being debunked), dark energy (also being debunked) and the need for "inflation"? These are all retrodictions not predictions.



Scientists love to be thought of as "rigorous". Take the following logic tree from Zoran Pazameta trying to demonstrate the difference between science and religion. He starts out with science, 

"Truth from SCIENTIFIC METHOD" 

First of all what does he mean by truth? A set of flexible facts metamorphosed into a tapestry of pseudo wisdom using logic/lies?

"Same for all: OBJECTIVE"

Give me a break! Science is one of the most subjective of any intellectual disciplines ever invented.

"Truth is provisional"

That's rich, how about ephemeral?

"Proof: OBSERVATION/EXPERIMENT"

Another classic---how about preconceived and preordained? Take the Eclipse Data from 1919. Hawking called it, "Sheer luck or knowing the results they wanted to get..." According to Eddington, his methodology i.e. corrupting the data and corrupting the scientific method, is the correct path to enlightenment. Science is often serendipity i.e. getting results you neither expect nor predict.

"Deals with the NATURAL WORLD" 

This must be quantified to do physics---once again the approximation of the truth is a lie and physicists approximate the truth. This is true in astrophysics, geophysics, nuclear physics, and theoretical physics. 

Here is what is meant by truth in geophysics. My boss at Lamont-Doherty once claimed it helped to pick refraction horizons after about three beers.

"RELIGION"

"Truth from REVELATION" 

Absolutely correct, I would append that to read, Revelation/faith.

"Only given to a select few"

True for religion, false for spirituality.

"Truth is ABSOLUTE"

That is why I believe in absolute time and absolute space.

"PROOF: none  Only need FAITH"

"Deals with SPIRITUALITY"

"N.B. They are mutually exclusive. They deal with separate aspects of human existence."

Agreed. Thus my development of my theory of Intuitive Iteration based on the supposition that logic and intuition/ faith are separate ways to view the world. Neither is superior to the other and must be reconciled to get at the "TRUTH". 

There's nothing to prove or disprove, life is no theorem.
Aerodynamics is useful because it builds planes to fly ; God and Abner of Shrewsbury are friggin useless. See Laplace.
Unless you're in controlling people from above, of course.

Uruk wrote on 08/05/10 at 23:40:23:

Nevermind sending his son..

The thing is with Sloughter is that he will reply, but never answers any question posed. 
'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.'

sloughter wrote on 08/05/10 at 18:55:09:
Such a god doesn't make sense; it's nothing but a synonym for Big Bang and Big Crunch.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/06/10 at 13:07:24:


God does not micromanage. It is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega, but has no control over the middle of eternity.