From: "Robert Comer" 

> The problem with religion filling in those places that are out of the
> realm of testable hypothesis is that they are purely subjective and so
> there can be as many religious opinions as there are people to hold
> those opinions.

As is science when it trys to answer those same questions.

> Science doesn't know everything about anything, and doesn't claim to
> as far as I know.

Yep, but I have a problem with some in the scientific world claiming some
speculation is science when it's not, it's probably the same reaction some
get when someone talks about ID.

> Dicarding theories because they have holes is disingenuous at best.
> Note: that is in particular a comment aimed at people who discard
> evolutionary theory because it doesn't answer every question.we just
> haven't found it yet. It is definitely not aimed at you.

I agree, it usually just means new facts have to come to light and the
theory maybe needing some modification.

> Sure.  As soon as one posits "God" then all arguments are reconciled.
> Does evolution exist?  Sure, because God created it as the mechanism
> for the development of life on Earth.  Etc, etc.

Nah, I really didn't mean to go that far, just that if we ever, even if it
is ever so unlikely, get some scientific evidence for the existence of God,
that does the reconciliation, no matter if God and the Universe are/aren't
one and the same.  (kind of an extra, uneeded condition)

> Proposition: The IQ of a Designer of our universe (should said
> Designer exist) is questionable.
>
> Arguments: GW Bush.  Dick Cheney.  Donny Rumsfeld.
>
> QED.

I understand, it's the question of why does God allow bad things to happen.
All I can say is that I've asked it so many times it's not even funny.

I know I'm not going to say this well enough in a couple of short
paragraphs, but I'll try: The religious explanation, is that it really is
God's plan and these instances are all leading to the better good. I know
it seems to come up short on a personal level, but we really don't have the
big picture in mind.  As an example of a bad thing turning good, look at
someone's great hardship, say Katrina victums from this year -- it caused a
great outpuring of support and love from a great deal of people, and if
some of that support and love pours out to other less spetacular areas,
things are going to get noticed that weren't noticed before, things that
needed to be done.

Another example would be Stephen Hawking himself, here is this guy, trapped
in a totally useless shell of a body, yet he not only perceveers, he shines
-- he's the preeminent mind of our times, yet he has probably been a better
example to the people (geeks only I guess ) that are also
suffering greatly and see that they too can shine in some way if they just
try.

--
Bob Comer


"John Cuccia"  wrote in message
news:vtfcn19eeva6cop5obb5i6vd12a25l5bkh{at}4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 14:03:36 -0500, "Robert Comer"
>  wrote:
>
>>> Scientists hypothesize, then try to test those hypotheses, discarding
>>> and refining as experimental data refutes or confirms them.
>>
>>I do have a science degree.....  For me science is purely to explain what
>>happened (and to be amazed by it), religion is to explain why and to fill
>>in
>>the places that science can't.
>
> The problem with religion filling in those places that are out of the
> realm of testable hypothesis is that they are purely subjective and so
> there can be as many religious opinions as there are people to hold
> those opinions.
>
>>>Big Bang
>>> theory is in the mainstream of cosmological thought today because many
>>> of its predictions have been found to be accurate, a la the discovery
>>> of the cosmic background radiation.
>>
>>No argument with me there.  It also has some problems. (like the lack of
>>mass needed, and the ever increasing expansion.)
>
> Science doesn't know everything about anything, and doesn't claim to
> as far as I know.
>
> Dicarding theories because they have holes is disingenuous at best.
> Note: that is in particular a comment aimed at people who discard
> evolutionary theory because it doesn't answer every question.we just
> haven't found it yet. It is definitely not aimed at you.
>
>>That the Universe was God, it's just as possible to reconcile without that
>>condition.
>
> Sure.  As soon as one posits "God" then all arguments are reconciled.
> Does evolution exist?  Sure, because God created it as the mechanism
> for the development of life on Earth.  Etc, etc.
>
>>> You don't question the IQ of our hypothetical Designer?  Really?
>>
>>Really.
>
> Proposition: The IQ of a Designer of our universe (should said
> Designer exist) is questionable.
>
> Arguments: GW Bush.  Dick Cheney.  Donny Rumsfeld.
>
> QED.
>
> 
>
>>> Exactly my point.   Saying that there had to be a first universe is
>>> simply projecting your corporeal prejudice onto something that may or
>>> may not be subject to it.
>>
>>Yep, but looking at this universe, Science shows that it is true.
>
> Only as far as we can see.  Our vision is limited.
>
>>All this speculation on an a  neverending universe is just that, there's
>>no true science to explain it.
>
> Sure, but since we've already determined that science can't explain
> everything, then the existence of a Universe-without-beginning is as
> possible ass anything else.
>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5