Happy Halloween

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
But, It Is A Useful One

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on January 19, 2002 20:35:20 UTC

Hi Luis,

***In my opinion this is an accurate definition, but a redundant one (the considerations you make in these discussions aren't exactly what one might call 'superficial,' and so the fact that you contrasted "self-evident" with "based on experience" tells a lot about your stance).***

Well, Paul gave me flack about the term 'self-evident' for my choices of axioms, so I wanted to cover myself this time...

***"Common origin of seemingly different phenomena... is the reason we call them... unified." (Alex) Right. Notice Alex imposes no "why" on his assertion.***

This principle discussion came up when I asked Alex why he doesn't accept one all-encompassing unification principle to ulimately explain all that existed, is existing, and will exist. His counterpoint is that scientific principles are a subset of some mathematical order, but I challenged this by saying that many principles of science are not directly related to mathematics. He decided to focus on unification, but I still say that unification is a principle that isn't locked into mathematics. Rather, mathematicians use the principle of unification as scientists use it. The question of 'why' is not a concern that I wanted to challenge him with.

***'Why' is simply the way we connect the dots, and cause-effect relationships are nothing more than connections (something Doctor Dick spent twenty years "proving"). BUT, when you ask 'why' and get an answer, you might tend to perceive that answer as an affirmation of God. This is faulty logic.***

I looked at my post and the word 'why' was not in my text (I did a text search just in case). Did you really mean to reply to Yasir's post?

***As you know, I'm a big anthropic principle guy, and so I tend to agree with ALex on this one. Mark your calendars.***

It's one thing to agree with, it's another matter to respond to. I wish we could all get past the WAP (weak anthropic principle) because as the term 'weak' alludes, it is not an effective response to the coincidences seen in the laws of physics. As a result, we need to discuss which view of the strong anthropic principle is favorable. If we do that, my view is that theism comes away with the win.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins