Peter,
moq_discuss@moq.org wrote:
>
> Platt and Glenn,
> sorry to horn in on your conversation;
> Glenn, I noticed a statement of yours to the effect of (hang on,I'll find
> it):
>
> GLENN:
> The belief that the big bang was an accident is not a scientific
> belief. There is no scientific evidence that suggests it was an
> accident. There is no evidence to suggest any cause.
>
> By definition uncaused manifestations are either accidents or
> miracles. The confidence scientists have in the creative power of
> chance is an article of faith, something they assert despite the
> absence of any reasonable proof.
PETER
> ..................It's this last bit I'm wrestling with. : "By definition
> uncaused manifestations are either accidents or miracles."...
It's a bit confusing what with all the email going back and forth, but the
first paragraph above is mine (Glenn's) and the second one is Platt's. I
tend to agree with your assessment, Peter, if I understand it. Seemingly
uncaused manifestations may well have a cause afterall, but we don't know
the cause yet or may well never know it.
Glenn
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:48 BST