On Wed, 1 May 2024, 68hx.1806 wrote:
> 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".
>
Amen! ;)
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.