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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
More Comments

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on May 1, 2001 19:50:10 UTC

Hi Dick,

Here's a few more comments to ponder:

>>>You interpret this to mean that there is something else out there which could be called "reality". It is my position that it is the height of foolishness for anyone to say anything "is" reality. What I have presented is the best one may do! It is clear that, by construction, there exists no experiment which can invalidate my model. That puts it in the same category as "God" yet it is does a much better job at predicting.>The biggest argument I seem to have with you is your refusal to put internal self consistency as a requirement of rational thought.>>If one accepts my model as a viable model of reality than it makes no difference whether or not viable alternatives exist as you can be confident that, if they are truly viable, they can be translated into my model. (Plus that, I think only an idiot would think that only one model would be possible.) Try to prove there is no other way to skin a cat! At least my model gives you a place to start with reasonable confidence.

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 1994-2018 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