"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote

"Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net> wrote

"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote

When Copernicus developed the heliocentric theory, it was just a
proposal or supposition. However, it was testable and proved to
be true. That is true with almost all theories. I agree the various
theories on the origin of the universe are speculative, and I favor
none, but they are potentially subject to verification, or
falsification.
Therefore they cannot be dismissed as you insist.

This is not entirely true. Copernicus, or so I read had observed
sailing vessels gradually sink over the horizon until their sails
disappeared.
He had also observed the earth's reflection on the moon during
an eclipse so he had some these observations to account for. He
then proposed the heliocentric theory. And you are correct in
that this proposal had the potential for testing and confirmation.
But infinate numbers of parallel worlds, bubble universes etc.
We can never observe them, travel to any of them, even light
cannot pass from one to the other. There is no way conceivable
to test or confirm their existance. But we have tested and
confimed the theory that the universe had a beginning. This
leaves room for a creator. Even so, I have little need for
organized religion, nor do I support any organization.

Copernicus' theory was verified about one hundred years after it was
published.

The idea that the sun was the center of the solar system was not
new with Copernicus. Such theories had been proposed by
Aristarchus and Nicholas of Cusa. But Copernicus, a mathematician
worked out his system in full mathematical detail.
The movemet of planets was something that could be observed
and tested. Nut what about the infinate numbers of other universes?

I quote Hawking "When you say a number of universes can exist
side by side, I think your are treading on dangerous ground -
metaphysical grounds.....Hawking quoting Weinstein, 'he said that
the existance of other universes is not a predicate', what he meant
was that it is not very meaningful to say that other universes exist
unless there is some consequence that we can observe.
In fact, we can apply quantum mechanics to the universe, then
one is led naturally to a picture in which the universe has all sorts
of different branches.
Are these actual, physical regions that could be observed?
No, these would not be physical branches It just means that
there is a nonzero probability for the univere to have a lot of
different forms."
(See Hawking's Universe, pg. 103)

Why are you so critical of theories when they are relatively
only a few years old? The story that God created the universe
is thousands of years old, and it has never been proven.

Simply because unlike the heliocentric theory, which could be
observed, tested and had been worked out in full mathametical
detail at the time by Copernicus.

These other proposals? We cannot ever go there, observe them
or test them. Other than the fact that they were conceived
to counter the universe with a beginning, they have no other
meaning. It's only purpose is to close the room for a creator.

You prefer your no-falsifiable god, and to protect him from the
reach of science, placed him in some fairy land in order to prevent
any possibility of falsification.

For obvious reasons, secularist have attempted to create a kind of
"catch 22" situation an impediment where the creator is concerned.
They demand evidence of God's existance, but when evidence is
offered, the beginning of universe, as one example, the fine tuned
cosmological constants for another, they then argue that one must
FIRST _prove_ the existance of God. IOW they demand the
of the theist to prove God separate and independent of any
evidence. God must be proven in a vacuum. This is purely a
self-preserving measure for the secularist.

Have you ever noticed that everybody's feet are the exact length
required for them to reach the ground?

Non sequitur

Have you ever wondered what an extreme coincidence that is?
The odds must be astounding against this from happening.

This is a ***** poor analogy idiotic analogy.

It probably does not strike you as extraordinary because you
understand that your feet has to reach the ground, but to somebody
who does not understand that simple principle it does appear
extraordinary.

This is ridiculous. It's too obvious.

In 1979 an astronomer named Alan Guth attended a lecture on the
Big Bang at Stanford University. At that meeting the lecturer
pointed out the fine cosmic tuning at the time of the Big Bang.
Two years later Guth introduced his "inflationary universe theory"
which accounted for the appearant fine tuning of the universe and
for its uniformity. A NASA probe in 2006 has brought back
evidence which supports Guth's inflationary universe. As a result,
you have to recalculate your figures.

I know about Guth's inflationary universe. The inflationary "universe"
is considered to be _part_ of the hot big bang cosmology. The
universe expanded exponentaally during the early phase, just before
the formation of the quirk soup. I do not know whether or not you
are right about Guth's attendance of a lecture and questions about
the fine tuned universe motivated him, I've never read this, but if
true, it just demonstrates his hope and desire to close the "God
room". But nothing I've read confirms your opinion that the values
of the cosmological constants need to be "recalculated". Quite
the contrary, the speed of light remains constant at 285.282 MPH.
the value of gravitons are unchanged so is the strong nuclear force,
the weak force etc remain unchanged and constant.

Your approach is like the primitive savage who does not understand
why it rains, therefore he reasons that a god must make it rain. He
sees a vulcano and does not understand it, therefore he reasons that
a god must live inside. You are shown the Big Bang, do not
understand how it words, therefore you reason that a god must
have caused it.

I am quite certain that I know far more than you do about this subject.

This opinion is based upon your responses. I have read and studied
extensively both sides of this topic. You I would be willing to bet have
read virtually nothing. You possibably have only became familiar with
this in the past few days. Do you have any idea the names of the
scientist who advanced the anthropic principle. How many constants
have been discovered at present. How many can you name?
Chances are you haven't' been bothered to read both sides to this.

The god explanation is so simple.

I agree with Paul Davies, ".....for me the powerful evidence that
there is 'something going on' behind it all, The impression if
design is overwhelming. Science may explain all the processes
whereby the inverse evolves its own destiny, but that still
leaves room for there to be a meaning behind existance.

Is it by design that babies are born deformed? Is it by design that
wild beast prey upon each other? Is it by design that a vulcano
can kill thousands of people within hours? Is it by design that
AIDS, smallpox, polio and other deseases kill thousands, or
millions? Is it by design that a genetic desease can torture and
handicap thousands of generations? Is it by design that a cat likes
to play with a mouse before killing it? What kind of meaning does
these leave behind existance?

Why do you presume this means anything against anything I've written
about? You have a pre-conceived notion about people whom you
consider theist and without rhyme or reason you include me along
with your list. I started out from an agnostic position and gradually
over time reached the conclusion that the more or less non-secularist
scientist present a stronger case. The secularist are fighting a rear-
guard battle.

Thus we would have one universe following another in an
eternal cosmic process.

It is absolutely amazing to me the convoluted, grotesque
scenarios people who are irritated with the discovery that the
universe had a beginning. It a problem for them because it
leaves room for God.

What is amazing is how you can completely reject every theory
which does not agree with your unsupported position.

I would appeal to Ockham's razor and cut away the senseless
irrational half-backed suppositions that have been offered by those
people who have such a distaste for the beginning of the universe
and the possibility

And replace those suppositions by what? Do you want to follow
the ancient practice of attributing everything to a god?

Not true. Most things just follow pre-determined courses set by the
laws of physics. In any event. I know both sices of this debate. From
all I've seen you know only what one side presents. Furthermore you
don't _need_ to know anything else.

"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:9j