Re: OT: Huckabee, Ughh

GarageWoodworks wrote:
4) The universe we see was brought into existence by
something/someone. That something/someone is itself eternal OR
it too was created by something/someone. By means of
(mathematical style) induction, we conclude that there is either
an infinite depth of creators (The "Turtles All The Way Down"
theory)

I intended to address your Turtle theory, but forgot to come back.
It is an ridiculous theory, one that most people would have trouble
swallowing.

This is what I call a 'QUICK FIX" to the blunder that is the "first
cause" argument.

It is more plausible to me that mass-energy always existed. Matter
in some form or another, always existed (needed no supernatural
creator).

The bottom line on this is that sooner or later either science will be
backed into a corner where some phenomenon is observed that requires
the existence of a deity, or it won't ever be backed into such a
corner.

In science the null hypothesis is that there is no deity. So a
scientist won't accept such existence as proven until there is
evidence that allows no other explanation. This makes many religious
types angry--they don't seem to understand that the result of this
approach may some day be incontrovertible proof that their deity
exists.

Further, they don't seem to grasp that a method that one uses in one's
work may have little to do with one's personal beliefs. One can be
quite convinced that there is a deity without accepting any particular
piece of evidence as proof of the existence of that deity.

If there is an all knowing and all powerful deity who created the
universe and that deity wants us to find proof of his existence, we'll
find it. If there is and it doesn't, then maybe we should just leave
it the Hell alone lest we piss it off. And if there is no such deity
then why worry about it?

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: So much for "teach the controversy", an antidote for "Expelled"
    ... "wilfull ingorance" that science has already provided conclusive ... there is evidence the God that destroyed the earth with a ... global flood does not exist, because no such global flood happened. ... it would also require said deity to be a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... Kermit wrote: ... evidence exists, and for which a lot of contrary ... The non-existence of positive evidence for a deity does not ... Do you begin to see why science is mute on the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... Kermit wrote: ... evidence exists, and for which a lot of contrary ... The non-existence of positive evidence for a deity does not ... Do you begin to see why science is mute on the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: philosophy
    ... >> Science assumes neither the existence or absence of deity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is Everyone Here a Liberal Heathen?
    ... The problem is that "the existence of a deity or deities" is not a ... the existence of a deity are. ... such a god, but I would hope it wouldn't convince non-believers. ... and this is something that most believers seem loath to do. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Loading