Re: Edgar Allan Poe's Omega Point Cosmology

On 5/1/24 5:53 AM, D wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
> 
>> On 4/30/24 7:23 PM, Jamie Michelle wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2024 17:22:57 -0400, "68hx.1806" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Poe was an under-respected polymath indeed.
>>>>
>>>> However an "insightful" theory is just a theory,
>>>> like Democritus and "atoms". Neither had a shred
>>>> of PROOF, no evidence and logical steps that would
>>>> lead to a CONCLUSION. It was pure speculation in
>>>> a sea of speculation.
>>>>
>>>> And no, math does not prove the existence of 'gods'.
>>>>
>>>> As for the universe being open or closed - the jury
>>>> is still out on that. There have been recent worries
>>>> that the markers used to judge expansion might not
>>>> be as reliable as first believed - plus some info
>>>> that the "dark energy" input may be "variable".
>>>>
>>>> In any case, I'd suggest you move to the "religious"
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>> God's Existence Is Proven by Several Mathematical Theorems within
>>> Standard Physics
>>
>>
>>  Um ... no. Get over it.
> 
> Sigh... math cannot in itself, prove anything in the world. That is why 
> we have science. God is a claim about something in the world, and as 
> such, we currently have no proof, and by definition, any proof, would 
> just result in god being reduced to something in the world.
> 
> Now... therefore, most define god as beyond the world, but being defined 
> as such, by definition, god can never be proven, since we by nature are 
> being _in_ the world, and science is a tool and methodology to describe 
> the world. So if you start the argument by assuming god being "beyond" 
> the world, it is impossible to prove him.
> 
> That is why I am agnostic in saying I don't know. I do lean heavily 
> towards there being no god however.
> 
> Last, but not least, all proofs of god, tend to start out assuming god, 
> hence they are all useless except for people who are already believers 
> as a kind of "intellectual scaffolding" for their belief.


   GIGO ... Garbage IN = Garbage OUT. Reason and math
   require solid axioms, and theists often start
   assuming some castle in the sky is a solid axiom.

   Like any language, math can be used to help find
   organize and confirm facts - or be used to spin
   episodes of Harry Potter and Hobbit adventures.

   As usual, alas, 'the faithful' are only interested
   in a sub-set of facts, a sub-set of reason, only
   that which seems to confirm their beliefs. I've
   learned not to argue with them very much, just
   give them hints to where they can find better info.
   They will have to go there on their own.

   As to what the OP said about Poe - he really IS
   worth looking into ... a remarkably bright and
   intellectually diverse guy and in some ways ahead
   of his time. BUT, as said, his cyclic Big Bang
   theory was nothing but a notion - there were no
   hard facts at the time, he did not reason it out
   from evidence ... it just "seemed reasonable".