Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uscvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!uscvax!kurtzman From: kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.origins Subject: Re: Unprovable ideas in science and God Message-ID: <14@uscvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 16:33:24 EST Article-I.D.: uscvax.14 Posted: Wed Nov 6 16:33:24 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 03:38:47 EST References: <2294@ukma.UUCP> <121@uscvax.UUCP> <139@sdcc7.UUCP> <155@uscvax.UUCP> <151@sdcc7.UUCP> Reply-To: kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) Organization: CS&CE Depts, U.S.C., Los Angeles, CA Lines: 70 Keywords: Black holes, Creationism, Evolution Xref: linus net.religion:7790 net.origins:2558 In article <151@sdcc7.UUCP> ln63fac@sdcc7.UUCP (Rick Frey) writes: >In article <155@uscvax.UUCP>, kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >> Nothing is wrong with starting with a premise as long as you do not give it >> some special status just because it is your premise. You should be just as >> willing to disprove (as well as prove) any hypothesis that results from the >> premise. In the case of creationism the premise is that the earth was created >> by God in a certain way and nothing can be said to disprove it. Creationists >> give their premise the special status of being true. In science every >> premise is ultimately challengable. >> >That's a little unfair. A great number of 'Creationists' have abandoned the >literal 7 days idea and have tried to understand how Genesis might fit in >with evolution. Hebrew scholars have shown that the word used for day was >alternately used for period of time throughout the Old Testament. While it >might come slowly (if it has to come at all) Christian scientists can turn >from what they've believed and even from what they've sworn the Bible to say. >Not to many Christians today believe that the earth is the center of the >universe, and while it took a great while for that to get around, strongly >believed, supposedly Biblically based ideas can be discounted. Why did creationists have this 7 day theory in the first place? Was it through observation and scientific inquiry? No, it was religion. Now, it is unfair of me to say that creationism isn't science because some creationists are trying to work scientific theories into their Bible interpretations. Give me a break. Why/how is interpretting the stories in a book science? >> >> Why doesn't your God fall prey to that "same original cause dilemma"? Just >> because you define your god to be the uncaused cause? > >Because something must. Since there is something now and we know that >something does not come from nothing and since we can imagine as far back as >the beginning of time itself and we can ask the question what was before that, >your univese that has always existed is simply another uncaused cause. What >seems unlikely to me is something that follows natural and orderly laws to >seemingly break one of them to just appear (or to simply have been) when God, >who claims to have created the laws would be an original cause much more >likely to have the ability to create or to have existed eternally. > >> >> So you think a god is likely because of the way man perceives questions of >> being and order. > >Did I say that? I think God is likely because of a simple experimentally >proven idea that something does not come out of nothing. If everything has >to follow laws then to me, this law prohibits big bangs and eternally >existant universes but does not prohibit Gods who say they have created these >laws and universes. So you do believe that God is not subject to your original cause dilemma merely because you defined him that way. Now, for your experiment that starts with nothing and ends up with nothing: describe it and tell me how it proves your conclusion. > >> Why can't I just assume that the universe is uncaused? >> What is it about the universe that makes you think it must have been caused >> by something? Why can't the universe be the uncaused cause? > >Simply because uncaused causes are improbable in themselves. I used to try >to tell my Dad I never did anything bad that happened. Instead of making up >a story that could possibly explain it, I just said I don't know, it >happened. My dad never bought it and I can't either. If we're going to get >mystic, in my mind you can't get mystic when dealing with things like natural >laws. > If uncaused causes are improbable then so is the uncaused cause you call God.