From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Misquamicus)
Subject: Re: Vatican Finds Galileo 'Not Guilty'
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:41:24 GMT
Distribution: na
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Nov15.193111.10193@news.cs.brandeis.edu> aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:
>In article <1e4s9vINN756@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>, starr-daniel@yale.edu (Daniel Starr) writes:
>>Okay, you two have _completely_ lost me with your quotes and
>>responses, and it sure looks like both of you are confused about each
>>other's perspective as well!
>>
>>As someone who'd like to understand what you're saying, I would
>>take it as a great favor if you would each post a message,
>>WITHOUT quoting previous messages,
>>indicating:
>>
>>1.  What you think the discussion is about,
>>2.  What you think the best answer is,
>>3.  What you think the other person thinks the best answer is.
>>
>>If you could both do that, I think I might understand what
>>you're talking about.  If not, unless someone out there
>>would like to pipe up saying that this is perfectly
>>comprehensible to them,  perhaps you should take this to email?
>
>Fair enough.  I'm suggesting that science and religion are not in conflict
>whereas Mr. Copelan feels they contradict each other.  The existence or non-
>existence of God are assumptions rather than conclusions.  There are four basic
>points that come from this which shows that science and religion are not in
>conflict:
>
>  1) The assumption of God's existence is unnecessary for science to function.
>  2) Therefore, the religionist demand that the scientific world view conform
>     to that of some particular religion is invalid.
>
>Mr. Copelan agrees with these which is why they have barely been mentioned.
>
>  3) The assumption that God does not exist is equally unnecessary for science
>     to function.
>
>Mr. Copelan has conceded the assumption part but apparantly still feels that
>this assumption is necessary.  Early in the discussion, I posted comments on
>the Big Bang model versus Biblical creation which I felt showed my point but
>we may need further discussion on this.
>
>  4) Therefore, the scientific demand that religious world views conform to 
>     scientific world views is also invalid.
>
>Since religious and scientific world views are not required to be the same,
>the two world views can co-exist without conflict.
>
>One of the major obstacles in our discussion seems to be that Mr. Copelan
>wants to argue religion.  Since my arguement has nothing to do with religion,
>I continually delete those parts of his posts.  Hopefully, this will help
>clarify things and we can get into an interesting discussion.
>
>  -- Scott @Brandeis
>
>	"But God demonstrates His	"I tell you that in the same way,
>	 own love for us, in that	 there will be more joy in heaven
>	 while we were yet sinners,	 over one sinner who repents, than
>	 Christ died for us."		 over ninety-nine righteous persons
>					 who need no repentance." 
>		-- Romans 5:8 [NASB]		-- Luke 15:7 [NASB]



First of all, please excuse my posting style, as I have no terminal emulator.
Second of all, excuse me all to hell, but science DOES assume the nonexistance
of god. More exactly, science assumes that, if there is a god, it has
NO physical consequences on the observable universe. This is a strong
assumption, which effectively gets rid of the entire argument. As far as
point #4, there are logical problems with that as well, even disregarding
my assertion, but, since my assertion happens to be correct, I will waste
no time demolishing argument #4 (geez; is this a run-on sentance or what?).
Feel free to attempt an argument against my assertion...

-Misquamicus
Newsgroups: alt.atheism