| Pete Dashwood 2008-01-10, 6:56 pm |
|
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@sunvaley0.com> wrote in message
news:0jSgj.43755$Mu4.5848@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> "tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> More accurately, without God, there is no absolute basis for morality.
So that makes me immoral, according to you. If I was the kind of person who
resented such impugnment, I'd probably march to war on you and those like
you...
See how Religion causes wars?
>
>
> Those parameters would have to be defined in any proof, of course.
>
>
> Invalid reasoning.
No it isn't. It is observable fact. You just refuse to accept it. (Do you
wonder why I won't present hard evidence in support of OO... :-)?)
>Result doesn't have to be absolute for there to be a
> cause. Firing a gun at someone's head may not kill them, but if it does
> kill them it is the cause of death. Influencing probability is sufficient
> "effect" for a "cause".
>
>
> Already invalidated above.
Only in your mind.
>Result need not be absolute for there to be
> a cause. Simply influencing probablity is quite sufficient. That's a real
> no-brainer, Tim. :-)
You certainly seem to using no brain to demonstrate it... :-)
>
>
> On what logical basis do you say it's a "different thing"? If nothing in
> this universe happens without a cause (fact), by what flight of illogic
> does one *assume* that the universe itself did not need a cause? Just
> make it up and claim it as fact? ;-)
Er... it was YOU who claimed that God created the Universe by being outside
it...
>
>
> Again, invalid reasoning on faulty (actually missing) premise.
Only invalid reasoning here is yours...
>
>
> Physics has nothing to say about things external to the universe.
That's right. Physics is based on real observable phenomena and rightly
recognises that events outside a frame of reference do not affect that frame
of reference.
>Supposing
> a series of (obviously and provably) connected events "just happened"
> without
> any cause is, on the face of it, preposterous.
As has been noted here on a number of occasions, with examples, by myself
and others, there is nothing "preposterous" about it (other than the
consideration that most of what happens in Quantum Physics is "preposterous"
when considered in the light of our perception...). Nevertheless,
"preposterous" or not, these effects DO occur. It IS a wave AND a particle,
photons DO go through both slits simultaneously unless you don't want them
to, the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box, and simply
observing what is going on affects the results. There is much more here than
we perceive and it has nothing to do with God. It simply reflects our, as
yet, imperfect understanding of the Universe. But we are getting there, and
the requirement to make some Supreme Being responsible for it all,
diminishes as our understanding increases.
I like the story in Genesis. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is indeed
powerful. One day (when we have acquired the necessary skill and
understanding), we'll tell God to sod off and build our own garden...
>Mention physical principles,
> then throw them out the window by fiat with no basis in observable fact?
> One
> can "prove" any number of things using such methods. ;-)
>
>
> Got past what? You have yet to state even a flimsy valid opposition.
> Sorry Tim, I fail to see any revelance to the discussion.
Is that a problem with his argument or with your ocular perception?
>
>
> If God created it, He knows.
And if He didn't, then He doesn't. So what?
> If you a priori chuck that explanation out
> window, as you blithely did physical principles above, and it's the
> correct
> one, then you'll never know, will you? :-)
And if it is NOT the correct one, continued investigation will lead to
better understanding of it, so he WILL know, won't he? :-)
Guess which horse I'm backing...
Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
|