Back to Home

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

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
One More Time With Gusto

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Box Holder on March 22, 2002 00:54:04 UTC

Yanniru wrote
"There is no element of randomness in the scripture of Job."

big whoop .. not a very "rigorous" appraisal.
I was never saying Job must be believed as I understand it. You are tilting at windmills
and loving it, right?

Yanniru wrote:
"First of all, randomness is not run by math. . Just the same as nature is not run by math, notwithstanding Alexander's claims.

Math can describe how nature behaves, but it does not control it. "

Occupant replies,
Hey, I've said that myself and argued with Alexander about it. How come you're implying I hold the opposite view? Because you forgot?

Yanniru wrote:
"Regarding randomness- we know that a great deal of nature, especially turbulent systems like the weather, are random. That means to me that there could not be an intelligent being controlling it. "

Occupant responds:
Mark Twain: "Given a thimblefull of facts, we rush to make generalizations that would fill a bathtub."

Being a career government laser physicist does not make you the authority on management. And management is what a purported Deity does or doesn't do, right? Your disproof of Deityhood
rests on false assumptions, even if there WERE a non-Deity whose existence merits proving.
For one thing, "Control" in management does not always mean tight control, as long as legal and safety requirements are heeded.
You also don't display a tight understanding of the various meanings of the word random.
"Statistically random" is the definition of "random" that we're concerned with in science.

Understanding nature hinges on it, but not alone among the terms.

Nice try, but just because you are 100 years old does not make you more of an expert on the 12 billion year universe than anyone younger.

Thank you.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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