Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re:  Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
From: jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (P'relan)
Date: 17 Nov 92 10:45:24 -0500
Organization: Dept. of Physics

In article <AA05158.199211162157@tuda.ncl.ac.uk>, dph1jg@tuda.ncl.ac.uk (J.P.Gardner) writes:
> The Space Cadet listens to STM give his view of science and religion.
> 
> "What?" he says, "You mean after all that shouting, STM and Nightstalker
> agree with each other?"

I don't think that's the case from my reading of their posts...
 
> "Let's see: First of all, it is obvious that STM and Nightstalker just
> plain don't like each other. Next, STM is very rude. When someone
> posted this before he asked for specific examples, so I'll provide
> some. Use of profanity is usually not considered to be good manners,
> and STM called NS's arguments bullshit.

I've never considered "bullshit" to be profanity, but I agree with your
basic point.

> "<<SIGH>> I also think it is bad manners to point out when someone
> is being rude, especially publically. I guess I'm guilty too. :-<

Does that mean we get to throw pies at you?  (-:  Or maybe I shouldn't have
brought that up since I probably deserve a few too - if you do feel inclined
to throw any, I love apple pies.
 
> "Let's see... Well, I found most of STM's objections to NS's first post
> to be either nit-picking, or knocking down straw men. (And I do wish he
> would quit that, the straw is playing havoc with my allergies.
> Ah-Choo!) This is not all that surprising, I guess, in that STM agrees
> with NS's main thesis. STM has made it abundantly plain that he
> doesn't like fundamentalists. NS has made it equally plain that he
> is not one.

STM's disagreements to the original post seemed valid to me - I hit some of
the same points in my reply.
 
> in circles. There is no way to prove that (any particular) God exists
> either, scientifically, unless you limit God, and make God not
> omnipotent. And then you just have one more natural law, or one more
> intelligent being.

I have a few questions on this point.  Why do you consider God to be
omnipotent?  I don't recall the Bible saying anything to that effect but
that could be that I just don't remember.

Secondly, what does omnipotent mean?  I think you'd probably exclude
logical contradictions and I'd include violating the physical laws (the
actual natural laws which are not isomorphic to our current conception
of them).  Even if God could violate physical laws, I can't see that
there ever would be a need to do so.  If you, as an omnipotent and omni-
scient being, want to crush the evil king with a rock from the skies, you
don't have to throw the rock yourself, but forseeing all these events in
advance, you initialize your universe so that the orbit of a meteor happens
to intersect the Earth exactly as to fall on the king at the precise time
you want to do so.
 
> "If anyone wants to respond to anything I have said, I really would
> welcome it, and I do expect to learn something. But please, remember
> where you are, and use a soapbox. I'll leave it here for you."

Well, soapboxes still seem to be a recent innovation to me and I've never
gotten the hang of them.  Anyone out there have a users' manual?
 
> He pulls out a large number of small brass coins. "Here, Mike, get STM,
> and Nightstalker, and anyone else I may have offended what they want.
> There's probably a long list."
> 
> --The Space Cadet 

P'relan reminds himself to be offended the next time somebody offers drinks (-:

So, are you freezing in England yet, Space Cadet?  If their winter's going to
be as hard as ours is starting to be, it'll be a drastic change from Hawaii.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 P'relan (and Birith)      	   ``Time stand still -
 jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu      I'm not looking back -
  or jwwalden@miavx1.bitnet	     But I want to look around me now.'' - RUSH
Newsgroups: alt.callahans