On Apr 5, 9:21*am, Ye Old One wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 16:11:02 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:





"PD" wrote in message
...
On Apr 4, 8:57 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:42:06 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 8:27 am, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:21:56 -0700 (PDT), PD

wrote:
On Apr 4, 2:51 am, "Sanity's Little Helper"
wrote:
"adman" wrote
toalt.atheismon04
Apr 2008:

We now know according to the most widely accepted theories of
cosmology that the physical universe we see today was created out
of
nothingness (meaning - no time, no space, and no matter).

Lie. We know it wasn't created at all.

Actually, you know nothing of the sort. The laws of physics as we know
them do not trace reliably back all the way to the big bang
singularity. All we know is that we DON'T know what happens before
that point.

We don't know that the Great Arkleseizure didn't sneeze it into
existence either.

And so what?

However there is zilch, zip, nada reason to think that it was either
sneezed or created.

That's correct. We also DO NOT have evidence of something that DID
create the universe. We DO NOT have evidence of different laws of
physics that operate beyond the range of validity of the laws of
physics we know.

This is fundamentally an argument (and a silly one) about the UNKNOWN.
You are discussing the nature of something that is *established* to be
outside of our present domain of knowledge.

No, we are discussing idiots who think their religious beliefs should
be given equal credence with science.

There is no credence to be measured between science and religion in
the domain of the UNKNOWN.

Science can make inroads into exploring the unknown.

Religion would hold us back every time.





Nobody outside their religion even gives it a thought because it's
merely the myths and legends of one of the thousands of religions out
there.

It's not even "the unknown" because there is no reason whatsoever to
bring it up.

It doesn't even make sense to talk about "vanishing small
probability/possibility" because its believers imagine this
consciously leaves room for it.

Once again, you are arguing about the value of extrapolating (and
thereby mentally computing a probability/possibility) laws from INSIDE
their domain of applicability to OUTSIDE their domain of
applicability. And you are asserting, incorrectly, that this is the
more "scientific" approach to treating the unknown than the religious
approach to treating the unknown. I dispute that, and I believe a very
large number of working physicists would dispute that. At least,
that's how I was trained as a working physicist.

Hohohoho! You, a working physicist? Pull the other one, its got bells
on.





When in fact it doesn't even arise outside the imagination of the
believers - who have already assigned a probability of 1 to it.

Now, you can have opinions or expressions of faith (that is, something
you believe without evidence) about how the unknown should be treated.
You can suggest, for example, that it is your *belief* that we will
encounter no fundamental surprises in the unknown once that boundary
is pushed. There will be people who *believe* the opposite.
You can suggest, for example, that we should operate under a rule that
says "Don't believe in anything until you have evidence for it." There
will be people who do not see the operational value of that.

And you can invent beliefs people don't have. It won't get you
anywhere.

Note that even among *scientists*, there is not consensus on the
proper way to treat the unknown. There are hundreds of theoreticians,
for example, that are working and working hard on *highly* speculative
what-if scenarios for which there is absolutely no evidence
whatsoever. You may regard that as foolish. The scientific community
does not unilaterally agree. In fact, the scientific community in
general does think there is value in that kind of research, but the
choice to work in that domain is purely personal. There are some that
are driven and gifted in that area, and there are others that driven
and gifted in more evidentiary areas.

However they are just scenarios, they _do_ fit the known facts and
unlike gods nobody claims they are accurate explanations. Just avenues
to be explored.

Read my lips. These are what-if scenarios for which there is NO
experimental evidence whatsoever.

Experimental, at the moment no. But most what-ifs start out with some
data that needs to be explained.

There is no accuracy of explanation
to be judged. There are no known facts fit. There is NO match to data
of any kind from string theory or brane theory or spin-foam lattice
theory, yet there are hundreds of very competent physicists who are
spending their careers on it.

You do talk some rubbish.

--
Bob.


The attributions got mangled. The statements you are arguing with are
mine. I'm a physicist. Tell me again what your questions or disputes
are.

PD