"Jeff Relf" wrote in message
...
Hi Rich ,
You say :
" I always thought that ' god ' was a name ,
not a title . "

" God " can't be a unique name of some guy .

Monotheism doesn't make sense .

Because nature is surely infinite in complexity and breadth ,

Why? Just because a number is beyond the ability
for a human to comprehend does not mean its infinite.

Same with nature.. and all natures wonders... Just because
we have yet to fathom the depths of variety does not mean
that there is not a finite number of variations that we have
yet to understand....



Nature can't be a node ... Topmost or otherwise .

i.e. There can't be a topmost " God " .

" God " is just the local parent node ... A title .

I learned a really interesting insight while posting on this newsgroup
that answers a question that I've always wondered about. I once went
to a museum in New York City that had artifacts from ancient Egypt,
many of them idols. I wondered to myself why would an intelligent
people such as these who built incredible pyramids still standing
today believe in such nonsense? These weren't just the common folk
who believed this stuff but the whole society revolved around this.

Now I understand how it happened through talking to others in the
thread that I started "A question about the big bang". My hypothesis
is that one guy decided to try to worship a stone that he carved to
see what happens. Then afterwards, he had something really good
happened to him, he found a few gold coins, he met a lady (or man, as
homosexuality has historically been linked with idol worship) to spend
the night with, or he was able to kill one of his enemies. He told
everyone about his good fortune and they tried it. Some of them had
good fortune afterwards and they were convinced in its power.

Others weren't so fortunate, but the man explained to them that this
is because they had angered the stone god and they had to say offer
sacrifices to it. So they did and some of them had good fortunes and
they concluded that it was a result of worshiping the stone god. The
others who did not have luck with the stone god, were mad at it, so
they built another stone god and some of them had good fortune
afterward, so they concluded that their stone god was better than the
other one. This continued on until the whole country was infected
with idolatry. Anyone who questioned it would of course be persona
non grata in such a society, because such a person would anger the
gods, so people like this would have to be killed. And they would
respond to anyone who says all of these things (before they kill him)
that if these gods are not real and G-d really exists, then why would
he have led us to believe in these gods, giving us good fortune when
we worship them? And so that is why the ancient world was the way it
was.

Now, I guess since we are modern people, we are immune to such
nonsense, right? Wrong. You will see that our society has an illness
very similar to idolatry - namely belief in the big bang (also a more
chronic illness is belief in evolution but this is a physics post, so
I'll stick to the big bang). The theory says that there was once a
big explosion in the universe and that's caused everything that we see
today to be as it is. The evidence for the theory is that we look
into the sky through our telescopes and we see the stars behaving in a
certain way which fit mathematical equations that predict a
"singularity" in the space-time continuum about 13.7 billion years
ago. And the scientists proclaim that they now know pretty much how
the universe was created (through a big explosion). But do they? If
someone were to come to these same scientists one hundred years ago
and proclaim that the universe has a beginning they would have laughed
at him and called him a religious zealot with an agenda, since
classical physics does not account for this in its equations. But
now, since we are more enlightened, we see that in fact it took 13.7
billion years for the universe to evolve and not everyone believes it
necessarily, but if they don't, then they are in the "out group" and
not a "true scientist".

Now there are two problems with such a theory.

1) The theory states that there was a giant explosion in the beginning
of time which resulted in a relatively ordered universe. But
explosions never result in order whatsoever. Explosions take place in
wars and terrorist attacks, but what do they bring? Destruction and
disorder. Not order. Therefore, if a giant explosion did occur in
the beginning then it could not have produce the relatively ordered
world that we live in today.

2) The observations made through the telescopes yielded data which is
very accurate. However, the data has been interpreted with the
assumption that the laws of the universe way out there in space are
the same as they are here, without actually going out in space and
taking measurements there. They figure that by looking at it through
a telescope, it is sufficient to make their conclusions, because they
are "seeing" what is going on. The problem is that seeing things from
only one perspective plus an unproven assumption that the laws out in
space are the same as on earth (for instance the values of the
universal constants such as G, c, h, epsilon, mu, etc.) does not yield
the whole picture. It is certainly conceivable that our
interpretations of the telescope observations are wrong and the laws
of the universe distant from us are different than what we experience
here. In fact, this is not only conceivable but probable. We have
observed many weird things in the universe and it is not a simple
thing to understand. So for instance, it is probable that these
universal constants are not really so universal.

But tell it to a scientist today, at least the "scientists" that
posted on the thread I started. They will attack ruthlessly, calling
the person who makes such claims "ignorant" or a religious zealot.
They are afraid of discussion because it might upset their gods (not
literally, but they are afraid of being refuted, because this means
that in fact G-d caused them to come into existence, not some big
explosion and they don't want there to be a Higher Power since they
would have to be held accountable morally for their behaviors.) So
they might give excuses such that if you wait a few billion years, the
explosion will naturally become ordered because the atoms naturally
are attracted to each other and bond with each other or because a
thousand monkeys on a typewriter will produce Shakespeare one day. Or
they will say, if G-d exists then why would he fool us like this,
similar to the idolaters described above? Of course, this is all
nonsense because experimentally, order does not result from disorder.
And G-d is not fooling them, they are only fooling themselves.

So we see that idolatry and the zealous belief in the big bang theory
have much in common.

Craig

Hi Craig Feinstein ,
You say that scientists :
" don't want there to be a Higher Power
since they would have to be held accountable " .


Isn't there a hierarchy of power ?
With pseudo " Gods " above and below us ?

You , Craig , are a pseudo " God " .

We're all pseudo " Gods " .

Pure nature is perfectly mindless ,
And it's complexity and breadth are probably infinite .

Despite the obvious lack of scientific determinism ...
Material determinism is most surely absolute .

Nature controls all of us ... Like puppets on a string .

_ Genuine _ free will does not actually exist .

It's far too deluded to imagine anything else .

Craig Feinstein wrote:
[snip irrelevent drivel]

Now, I guess since we are modern people, we are immune to such
nonsense, right? Wrong. You will see that our society has an illness
very similar to idolatry - namely belief in the big bang (also a more
chronic illness is belief in evolution but this is a physics post, so
I'll stick to the big bang).

No need. You've already revealed yourself as a creationist imbecile, and
the rest of your post can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy.

1) The theory states that there was a giant explosion in the beginning
of time which resulted in a relatively ordered universe. But
explosions never result in order whatsoever. Explosions take place in
wars and terrorist attacks, but what do they bring? Destruction and
disorder. Not order. Therefore, if a giant explosion did occur in
the beginning then it could not have produce the relatively ordered
world that we live in today.

Here you simply take the creationists' chronic misconceptions regarding
thermodynamics and apply them to the evolution of the entire Universe,
rather than restricting yourself to living organisms. It's the same
argument, and it's just as wrong.

2) The observations made through the telescopes yielded data which is
very accurate. However, the data has been interpreted with the
assumption that the laws of the universe way out there in space are
the same as they are here, without actually going out in space and
taking measurements there.

And how do you propose we do that? Answer: you don't. Rather than have
us make a few eminently reasonable assumptions about the way the
Universe works, so that we can do science, you would prefer us to sit
still and read the Bible.

It is certainly conceivable that our
interpretations of the telescope observations are wrong and the laws
of the universe distant from us are different than what we experience
here. In fact, this is not only conceivable but probable. We have
observed many weird things in the universe and it is not a simple
thing to understand. So for instance, it is probable that these
universal constants are not really so universal.

Why is this 'probable'? Give one example that supports your contention.

--
Pyriform

No need. You've already revealed yourself as a creationist imbecile, and
the rest of your post can be predicted to a high degree of accuracy.

Just like the idolators of yesterday, the people who believe in the
big bang will attack those who question their beliefs.

1) The theory states that there was a giant explosion in the beginning
of time which resulted in a relatively ordered universe. But
explosions never result in order whatsoever. Explosions take place in
wars and terrorist attacks, but what do they bring? Destruction and
disorder. Not order. Therefore, if a giant explosion did occur in
the beginning then it could not have produce the relatively ordered
world that we live in today.

Here you simply take the creationists' chronic misconceptions regarding
thermodynamics and apply them to the evolution of the entire Universe,
rather than restricting yourself to living organisms. It's the same
argument, and it's just as wrong.

Of course, they will never explain why attacks on idolatry are wrong,
they will just demonize the people who question them and call them
ignorant.


2) The observations made through the telescopes yielded data which is
very accurate. However, the data has been interpreted with the
assumption that the laws of the universe way out there in space are
the same as they are here, without actually going out in space and
taking measurements there.

And how do you propose we do that? Answer: you don't. Rather than have
us make a few eminently reasonable assumptions about the way the
Universe works, so that we can do science, you would prefer us to sit
still and read the Bible.

The idolater says if you don't think my god is powerful, then why
can't you build a better god? He then mocks the nonbeliever in his
god implying that reading his Bible is stupid.


It is certainly conceivable that our
interpretations of the telescope observations are wrong and the laws
of the universe distant from us are different than what we experience
here. In fact, this is not only conceivable but probable. We have
observed many weird things in the universe and it is not a simple
thing to understand. So for instance, it is probable that these
universal constants are not really so universal.

Why is this 'probable'? Give one example that supports your contention.

Then the idolator plays dumb.

Craig

Craig Feinstein wrote:
Of course, they will never explain why attacks on idolatry are wrong,
they will just demonize the people who question them and call them
ignorant.

You didn't make an attack on idolatry. You made an attack on basic
science, and you were wrong. I didn't call you ignorant; you entered the
room with a loudhailer and announced the fact yourself.

It is certainly conceivable that our
interpretations of the telescope observations are wrong and the laws
of the universe distant from us are different than what we
experience here. In fact, this is not only conceivable but
probable. We have observed many weird things in the universe and
it is not a simple thing to understand. So for instance, it is
probable that these universal constants are not really so universal.

Why is this 'probable'? Give one example that supports your
contention.

Then the idolator plays dumb.

No. The rationalist (that would be me) asks a sensible question and the
fool (that would be you) declines to answer it. From this, the
dispassionate observer might well infer that the fool can offer no
evidence whatever for his assertion.

--
Pyriform

Craig Feinstein wrote:

I learned a really interesting insight while posting on this newsgroup
that answers a question that I've always wondered about.

We pull out a bull**** meter crate.

I once went
to a museum in New York City that had artifacts from ancient Egypt,
many of them idols.

Unpack the bull**** meter.

I wondered to myself why would an intelligent
people such as these who built incredible pyramids still standing
today believe in such nonsense? These weren't just the common folk
who believed this stuff but the whole society revolved around this.

Ask the Vatican, the Mayor of Mecca, Reverend Ike, or John Travolta.
Send in your Jesu-bucks or be damned to Hell for all eternity. Try
the front end of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" with Charles Laughton
when Esmiralda queues up to demand boons of the Virgin Mary.

Now I understand how it happened through talking to others in the
thread that I started "A question about the big bang".

Bull**** meter big banana plugs inserted. Needle quivers.

My hypothesis
is that one guy decided to try to worship a stone that he carved to
see what happens.

Idiot. Prostitution trades ephemeral favors for chattels. Religion
is prosititution with the favors only promised - "we'll gladely trade
you salvation Tuesday for a hamburger today." Religion is power and
money and a busted flush everybody is afraid to call.

Does science deliver, git? (Other than Micrcrap promising a working
version of Windows.)

[snip a bunch of parochial sciolistic crap]

The theory says that there was once a
big explosion in the universe and that's caused everything that we see
today to be as it is.

No, stooopid. The Big Bang was an explosion of space, not in space.

The evidence for the theory is that we look
into the sky through our telescopes and we see the stars behaving in a
certain way which fit mathematical equations that predict a
"singularity" in the space-time continuum about 13.7 billion years
ago. And the scientists proclaim that they now know pretty much how
the universe was created (through a big explosion). But do they?

Provide an alternative consistent with observation.

[snip more whining crap]

Now there are two problems with such a theory.

1) The theory states that there was a giant explosion in the beginning
of time which resulted in a relatively ordered universe.

Idiot.

But
explosions never result in order whatsoever. Explosions take place in
wars and terrorist attacks, but what do they bring? Destruction and
disorder.

(Waste of a good bull**** meter.) Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, you
christian imbecile.

[snip more crapola]

2) The observations made through the telescopes yielded data which is
very accurate. However, the data has been interpreted with the
assumption that the laws of the universe way out there in space are
the same as they are here, without actually going out in space and
taking measurements there.

Idiot. Pull a CRC Handbook and look at the very beginning. Change
anything in the tables, propagate the change throughout, and try to
have a working universe. It either all hangs together exactly as seen
here, or it isn't there at all.

[snip more whining crap]

So we see that idolatry and the zealous belief in the big bang theory
have much in common.

Religion and science are orthogonal, git. If you cross them you get
nothing.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Craig Feinstein wrote:

So we see that idolatry and the zealous belief in the big bang theory
have much in common.

The BB hypothesis and subsequent facts fit very well. The figure of
merit for a theory or hypothesis is how well supported it is empirically.

No finite number of facts can prove a hypothesis or theory true, but if
the theory or hypothesis survives many challenges, one my feel
comfortable keeping it until (1) facts indicate that it is false or (2)
a better theory or hypothesis is formulated.

Having a theory is NOT idolatry. It is science, as long as the facts
support the theory.

Bob Kolker

Craig Feinstein wrote:

Now, I guess since we are modern people, we are immune to such
nonsense, right? Wrong. You will see that our society has an illness
very similar to idolatry - namely belief in the big bang (also a more
chronic illness is belief in evolution but this is a physics post, so
I'll stick to the big bang).


Your God of Ignorance and Conceit wishes he was made out
of gold. Your God is jealous of gold plated replicas of the Empire
State Building.

Craig,

Please show how "belief" in the Big Bang is idolatry. You switch from
idolatry is the worship of material things, then go on to say that
idolatry is the belief in a certain idea.

My dictionary says and idol is "an image of a deity, etc. used as an
object of worship". Tell me, how can a theory be an "object" or even
an "image"? Or are you just using fudge words hoping that no one
notices that a scientific theory cannot be an "idol"?