| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-13, 6:55 pm |
|
"Alistair" <alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1144943071.741583.200440@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> LX-i wrote:
>
>
> Actually, it is a theory. Until a Grand Unified Theory is defined then
> the Law of Gravity is only a theory. And since it is not possible to
> prove something but it is possible to disprove something even with a
> GUT it will really only be a theory.
>
>
> It can be observed in action. Gravity (your "Law") can be observed in
> action but not satisfactorily explained (i.e. why is gravity so weak?).
>
>
> God must be pretty pissed off with Christians, Muslims, Hindus and
> Buddhists at the moment. Who does that leave?
>
Atheists? He hasn't indicated any issues to me. I'll happily discuss them in
a spirit of goodwill and co-operation if/when He does...
<snip>
>
> Surely, to quote the cosmologic anthropic principle, that is
> irrefutable proof
> of the existance of god?
>
That is not my understanding of the anthropic principle. It summates as: "If
the unverse was any other way we wouldn't be here to observe it."
Consequences of this are that there may be other universes we cannot be
aware of, but we are certainly aware of this one. I don't think God comes
into it, but I have no doubt that religious scientists would work Him in
somewhere... ;-)
>
> Ah, so evolution must be confined to lower orders of non-sentient
> animals, plants and slime? and not applied to humans?
>
>
> Rubbish. Go to the Galapagos islands. Darwin did.
>
>
> You can not observe Gravity or air, but you believe in both. Actually,
> you can not observe god and you believe in that antiquated notion too.
>
Lively debate. I'd score it nil all :-)
Pete.
|