From: "Robert Comer" 

Sorry about the spelling, I'm in Vista and I forgot I hadn't installed
Office yet to get the spell checker.

--
Bob Comer


"Robert Comer"  wrote in message
news:43764d2b$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> 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