Re: OT:Thanksgiving





"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7Wwaj.46370$L%6.29618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
donald tees <donaldtees@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What always bothered me about the "watch on Mars" argument is that the
introduction of "God" into it. It seems to me that if finding a watch on
Mars proved the existence of a watchmaker, then the same inference
applied to humans on earth proves the existence of biologists, not some
mystic, poorly defined god taken from an old book.

The more basic problem with the watchmaker argument is that if
everything requires a watchmaker, then obviously the watchmaker
requires a watchmaker maker.

All the way down.

Not so. We live in a causal universe. For something to happen or exist
there must be a cause. For anything to exist at all there must be a First
Cause. Without a First Cause there would be, could be, nothing.

Anyway, if you believed that, how did a "Big Bang" happen? You think
an infinitely dense, infinitely small particle that exploded to create the
universe just "came out of nowhere", and that is more logical than a
Creator? If so, you have sliced yourself to bits with Occam's Razor. ;-)

Despite the Pope asking Stephen Hawking not to go there (it was considered
the province of God) much investigation of the Big Bang has been carried out
and understanding of how it came about is growing. Personally, I believe the
solution is in multiple dimensions (See "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku) or
possibly M Theory. Sometime within the next 25 years we will have a pretty
good insight into it.

William of Ockham can rest easy; Big Bang is an efficient theory that fits
the observable facts very well.

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."



.



Relevant Pages