On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:55:45 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
As interesting as the answers given may have been, one of the inescapable
conclusions of this entire thread is that we know absolutely nothing about
the origins of the universe, if any. We can no more state with scientific
certainty that it was created, than we can state that it has always existed.
False dichotomy and red herring.
We can no more prove that it has purpose than we can prove it hasn't. Any
Baseless presumption.
The ONLY people who even consider it has a purpose are those who have
a pre-existing religious belief that says there is one. For everybody
else the question doesn't even arise.
answer we can imagine constitutes a conjecture. Asserting our beliefs as an
answer constitutes a personal leap of faith. Not recognizing this fact is
where the trouble lies, as we try to somehow force our leaps of faith (or
non-faith) on others in defense of our moral codes or values, or even egos.
We know more than you imagine - cosmologists and physicists have
worked back to what is known as Planck time - 10^-43 second after the
big bang.
The big problem is that this is an area where there is much interest
and people who make claims have to back them up. Cosmologists etc do
this - theists don't. And theists project their "way of doing things"
onto everybody else and imagine that the researched and understood
knowledge is some kind of equivalent opposite to theistic belief.
Right or wrong, we humans have built our societies around those leaps of
faith, and the best we can do is tolerate each other's belief. (Or
non-belief, whatever the case may be).
Some people built societies around religious belief - not "faith".
Faith is a level removed, and means two different things: (a) faith IN
their belief object whose existence is an unquestionable axiom, and
(b) an excuse for granting its existence in the total absence of any
evidence that it actually does exist.
And the same people imagine those with a better understanding of how
reality works, rely on "faith" because they can't conceive of any
other way.
Some folks replied as if I was trying to convince them that they should
believe in God. I am not.
Nobody gives a fork what you believe. As long as you (a) don't talk
about it as fact without being able to demonstrate that it actually is
fact, or (b) project your "methodology" onto everybody else and assume
their knowledge, understanding etc are also beliefs.
At least one other poster started his response by asking what it would take
to convince me [of something]. My answer to that gentleman is quite
simple, 'just write your own opinions, I can reach my own conclusions, just
as you can'
That is part of the problem - replacing words which mean something
else, with "opinion" to remove differences in meaning.
xyz
.
