Welcome Guest!
 II Errancy
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
[chrisd-@rogers.com] Existence  Errancy Archive
 Jul 22, 2007 16:52 PDT 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [errancy] Existence
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:40:26 -0400
From: "Christopher D'Souza" <chrisd-@rogers.com>
Reply-To: erra-@iierrancy.com

CHRISTOPHER

At this point, Chip, I can see that you have started thinking much more
deeply. I wish it were true that people invented microscopes to confirm the
theory of microbes, but it is not.

I leave it to Dardedar to stop sullenly wanking in a corner somewhere and
deflower you of your child like innocence with a quote on the Dutch inventor
in question.

But with 10 seconds of thinking, you would see that you are now understanding
Jason's point. To find out of God exists, we have to wait for the 'godoscope'
to be created, but first, we must imagine the possibility.

That is why I am an agnostic and not an atheist.

WALT


Are you also waiting on the 'invisiblepinkunicornoscope'? Or do you deny the
possibility of such a being existing?



CHRISTOPHER

Walt, first of all, thanks for speaking up and confirming to Chip that
microscopes were invented before microbes were conceived of. That sort of
identifies you as an independent thinker, so I will not take offence at your
presumption that I 'wait' for a 'godoscope'. We agonstics, and also all
scientists, do not 'wait' for something to be discovered. Whether progress
uncovers gods or pink unicorns is the same for us.

Science and agnosticism is just a way of clarifying what questions have NOT
been settled. At present, therefore, we can say that the existence or non
existence of gods, or pink unicorns or even my beloved flying spaghetti
monsters, is undecided. Atheism, therefore is as much as a belief statement as
Jason's christianity, and atheists are as religious about it.

There is one immaterial angle to it though, which I am sure you would wish to
apply your mind to. While science is neutral between gods and pink unicorns as
the finding of their study, they spend more time on the first than the second.
This is simply because curious animals are interesting but plentiful. But the
source of creation is of incalculable emotional and intellectual fascination
to human beings.

So, according to the best information at my disposal, there is zero funding
and effort currently applied to finding pink unicorns,( though some small
spending still goes into finding the sasquatch,) but on the other hand,
currently, science is working at the first version of the 'godoscope' which is
called the Large Hadron Collider.

Check it out at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

If you follow the link, the exact words from Wikipedia are:

"When (the LHC is...) switched on, it is hoped that the collider will produce
the elusive Higgs boson particle - often dubbed the 'God Particle' - the
observation of which could confirm the predictions and 'missing links' in the
Standard Model of physics, and explain how other elementary particles acquire
properties such as mass."

You will also find that costs are no hindrance:

"The construction of LHC was originally approved in 1995 with a budget of 2600
million Swiss francs (currently about 1700 million euro), with another 210
million francs (?140 m) towards the cost of the experiments. However, cost
over-runs, estimated in a major review in 2001 at around 480 million francs
(?300 m) in the accelerator, and 50 million francs (?30 m) for the
experiments, along with a reduction in CERN's budget pushed the completion
date out from 2005 to April 2007. 180 million francs (?120 m) of the cost
increase has been the superconducting magnets. There were also engineering
difficulties encountered while building the underground cavern for the Compact
Muon Solenoid."

Walt, you have, perhaps unwittingly, raised an interesting question, and from
the scientific and agnostic point of view, my answer is:

Walt, science is working billions of times harder at building godoscopes and
not at all at finding pink unicorns. And I completely agree with this set of
priorities.

Any more comments, Walt ?

<grins affectionately, because walt is still a nice sort of person, really>


---

              You've Got Questions. We've Got A Web Family (tm)

http://theskepticalreview.com   http://iierrancy.com   http://errantyears.com

     To manage your list subscription: http://iierrancy.com/support.html
	
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Developers
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 Internet
 Music
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Software
 Sports
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.