Galaxy Distribution

Obviously, stuff exists, which means there are only two possible pasts. Either stuff came into existence, or stuff has always existed. Likewise, there are two possible futures. Either stuff will cease to exists or stuff will last for ever. Take your pick. Neither view has any greater burden of proof than the other. So until one side proves its case beyond any reasonable doubt, it will remain a matter of religious preference.

PhilJ...as far as I can tell, Larry and I have both been very tolerant and polite!!!
[The one thing I can't tolerate is intolerance. So either start tolerating one another politely or please go away.]...so why are "you" being intolerant?
Matter "always being here" or being created somehow has nothing to do with religion!

S=G

LB...there are only the 2 possibilities...I believe there is a huge misconception about creation ex nihilo, more later.

S=G

Yes, you guys are very well behaved. Someday, I'll learn to never post when I'm running late for an appointment.

If there has been a theme for arguments in the years I have been involved with this msgbrd, its that folks want to argue religion vs. BB or MM. Creation from nothingness, divine design, and all of the above have been argued back and forth with the religious advocate usually left feeling bruised and upset. Please remember that science tells us what happens, has happened, and hopefully what will happen, while religion tells us the reason that those things happen for us. If scientists and theologists understand and follow the scientific method in their thinking and exploration of their own fields, then little to no argument should take place. For this thread the basic issue has really boiled down to the same thing, where did all this stuff come from? Did someone make it? Has it always been here?
Advocates of the MM and advocates of religious dogma should debate openly these matters. Quips about the nature of the person(s) with those thoughts are not part of the mandates of the scientific method and civilized thought.
Thanks, Mark

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If there has been a theme for arguments in the years I have been involved with this msgbrd, its that folks want to argue religion vs. BB or MM.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What I'm saying is that both BB and MM belong in the category of religion until one or the other is proven to be correct beyond a reasonable doubt.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Please remember that science tells us what happens, has happened, and hopefully what will happen,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Science has some excellent answers for what happens; it has not yet satisfactorily answered what has happened back to the beginning nor what will happen in the end---nor even if there is a beginning and end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...while religion tells us the reason that those things happen for us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Beliefs that things do or don't happen "for us" because of some divine "reason" are a different aspect of religion; and you are correct that this is not a proper forum in which to discuss such matters.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If scientists and theologists understand and follow the scientific method in their thinking and exploration of their own fields, then little to no argument should take place.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Just because we apply the scientific method to our religion doesn't make it more true than any other religion---at least not until the scientific method leads us to indisputable conclusions about the beginning and end. Advocates of both BB and MM are doing their best to follow scientific method; yet there is pleanty of argument taking place.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For this thread the basic issue has really boiled down to the same thing, where did all this stuff come from? Did someone make it? Has it always been here? Advocates of the MM and advocates of religious dogma should debate openly these matters.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Correct. We should debate these matters sensibly; and we should respect each others arguments according to their intellectual merits. Dogma masquerading as proof, with nothing to support it but three-thousand-year-old scripture, has no place here. You seem to be categorizing BB as dogmatic; I don't. I believe BB, however flawed, is based on reasoning and scientific method. What I vehemently oppose is the official recognition which has unconstitutionally elevated BB to the status of the Official Religion of the United States of America, and other countries.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Quips about the nature of the person(s) with those thoughts are not part of the mandates of the scientific method and civilized thought.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I don't think I am attacking anyone personally when I caution both Russ and Larry against believing that the other guy's position has a greater burden of proof than his own. Both sides have sought proof since man invented language, yet neither side is supported by sufficient proof; perhaps there will never be sufficient proof for either side. Just because the other guy hasn't presented a sufficient argument doesn't make your side right.