On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, >all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote or quoted:
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, >> all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole"
universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>> much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
-a-a-a-a-is
On 2/12/2026 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>>> universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely
very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
-a-a-a-a-is
This assumes that God lives in the same universe that we do.-a Robert
Sawyer espoused in his excellent book "Calculating God" that God must
expend great effort to actually do anything in our universe.
-a-a https://www.amazon.com/Calculating-God-Robert-J-Sawyer/dp/0812580354
Lynn
On 2/12/26 09:27, Stefan Ram wrote:That is probably the most cogent statement of transendent and
Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote or quoted:
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-knowing, >>> all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
Well part of God is in this Universe and part in the place/time/region
from which the materials for the Big Bang emerged. God is everywhere in
this universe and in everything to keep it in existence. If you want to >believe
in a God which is sort of not needed in most science aside from Theology.
I am an Agnostic Deist myself because I don't know if any entity to whichA lot of people feel that way, whether they admit or not.
the label G*d could be attached exists ourside of our human imaginations. >Worse I do not care much about the question any longer.
On 2/12/2026 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:Which was viciously attacked by the "scientific investigators of the paranormal" in /Skeptical Inquirer/ in the late 90s for /daring/ to
On 2/12/2026 9:53 AM, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.arts.comics.strips.]
Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole" >>>>> universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very >>>>> much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the >>>>> rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an all-
knowing,
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
aaaa-is
This assumes that God lives in the same universe that we do.a Robert
Sawyer espoused in his excellent book "Calculating God" that God must
expend great effort to actually do anything in our universe.
aa https://www.amazon.com/Calculating-God-Robert-J-Sawyer/dp/0812580354
On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:28:31 -0800, Bobbie Sellers ><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Theology.
On 2/12/26 09:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote or quoted:
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an = >all-knowing,=20
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
=20
=20
Well part of God is in this Universe and part in the place/time/region >>from which the materials for the Big Bang emerged. God is everywhere in >>this universe and in everything to keep it in existence. If you want to= >=20
believe
in a God which is sort of not needed in most science aside from =
That is probably the most cogent statement of transendent and
imminanent I have seen in a long time. Also the Ground of Being
concept. But the usual doctrine is creation /ex nihilo/, "out of
nothing", so no materials required.
On Sat, 31 Jan 2026 06:25:57 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
<peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
On 30/01/2026 17:03, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2026 07:03:16 +0000, Peter Fairbrother
10^80 hydrogen atoms is a good estimate for the observable universe. Of >>>> course we don't know whether the universe is finite or not..
I would thing the triumph of the Big Bang over the Steady State pretty
much implies a finite universe.
Big Bang doesn't change anything as far as the finiteness of the
universe goes.
The observable universe is known to be finite, but as for the "whole"
universe - we just don't know. The "whole" universe is very likely very
much bigger than the observable universe, but as we can't ever see the
rest of it .. how can we be sure?
How, indeed?
A better question is: how can the above be distinguished from
religion?
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Maybe it's all wrong. Maybe we are misreading the situation and the >universe is not expanding, or at least hasn't expanded for long.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist church.
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the Koran
in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
On 2/13/26 2:47 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the
Koran in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First
Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious
Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic
evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
Newton was a devout Christian, of the monotheistic variety, yes?[1]
Tony
[1] Iirc, he did not believe in the Trinity.
Tony Nance wrote:
On 2/13/26 2:47 PM, William Hyde wrote:
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the
Koran in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First
Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at
least one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a
fundamentalist church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious
Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic
evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe
I have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
Newton was a devout Christian, of the monotheistic variety, yes?[1]
Tony
[1] Iirc, he did not believe in the Trinity.
Yes, he was an Arian.-a Dedicated a million or two words on the topic,
which were studiously ignored until the last century.-a He took this work just as seriously as work on physics, mathematics, or alchemy.
I didn't want to cite older scientists, though, since at one point
everyone was either a Christian or pretended to be (we know of some
atheists through Pepys' diaries.-a Without this source we'd call them Christian).
I didn't want to cite older scientists, though, since at one point
everyone was either a Christian or pretended to be (we know of some
atheists through Pepys' diaries. Without this source we'd call them >Christian).
William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist church.
Shockley certainly did. There may have been others. Shockley was also a racist ass. (You could argue he wasn't really a scientist but an engineer though.)
It's hard being human. You want to be a logical creature as if made in
God's image but it doesn't always work out that way.
Paul S Person wrote:
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
Mohammad Abdus Salam was a believing Ahmadi Muslim who quoted the Koran
in his Nobel acceptance speech.-a His headstone once read "First Muslim
Nobel Laureate", but as Pakistan has declared the Ahmadis to not be
Muslim, that word has been removed.
My google skills are failing me, but I believe that there was at least
one mid century Nobel winner in physics who went to a fundamentalist
church.
As did Faraday.
Then there was Philip Gosse.-a Despite the failure of his "Omphalos"
idea, there is no doubt that he was a very successful natural scientist
as well as a fundamentalist Christian.
George MacReady Price was able to recruit a sting of Physicists and
Chemists to his creationist foundation.-a All of them were serious Christians and were initially prepared to believe that those evil
biologists were lying through their teeth about evolution.
Alas for Price, when these scientists actually looked at the evidence
for an old earth and evolution, they were convinced by it, and left
Price's organization.
They remained Christian, though.-a IIRC several became theistic evolutionists.
Many scientists are indeed atheist or agnostic.-a But I don't believe I
have ever worked in a department which was without some believers.
William Hyde
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:What I said doesn't; there is no "place/time/region from which the
On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:28:31 -0800, Bobbie Sellers >><bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
On 2/12/26 09:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote or quoted:
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an = >>all-knowing,=20
all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.
Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
=20
=20
Well part of God is in this Universe and part in the place/time/region >>>from which the materials for the Big Bang emerged. God is everywhere in >>>this universe and in everything to keep it in existence. If you want to= >>=20
believe
in a God which is sort of not needed in most science aside from = >>Theology.
That is probably the most cogent statement of transendent and
imminanent I have seen in a long time. Also the Ground of Being
concept. But the usual doctrine is creation /ex nihilo/, "out of
nothing", so no materials required.
It does, however, raise the question of where and how that >'place/time/region' itself was created und so weiter ad infinitum.
Paul S Person wrote:<snippo counterexamples>
y.
I mean, the effrontery of the man! Does he not know that all true
scientists are thoroughly doctrinaire atheists?
On Fri, 13 Feb 2026 17:21:19 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2026 12:28:31 -0800, Bobbie Sellers
<bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
all-knowing,
On 2/12/26 09:27, Stefan Ram wrote:
Ignatios Souvatzis <u502sou@bnhb484.de> wrote or quoted:
At least from the Middle-eastern monotheistic ones, easily: an =
Theology.all-observing God isn't possible with a finite speed of light.=20
Well, once one starts to assume something for which there are
no observations ("god"), one then can as well assume that he
is all-knowing by some kind of magic that does not need light.
=20
=20
Well part of God is in this Universe and part in the place/time/region >>> >from which the materials for the Big Bang emerged. God is everywhere in >>>> this universe and in everything to keep it in existence. If you want to= >>> =20
believe
in a God which is sort of not needed in most science aside from =
That is probably the most cogent statement of transendent and
imminanent I have seen in a long time. Also the Ground of Being
concept. But the usual doctrine is creation /ex nihilo/, "out of
nothing", so no materials required.
It does, however, raise the question of where and how that
'place/time/region' itself was created und so weiter ad infinitum.
What I said doesn't; there is no "place/time/region from which the
materials for the Big Bang emerged" when creation is from -- nothing.
Don't need a place to store nothing.
But don't let me interrupt your ranting.
You appear to have succumbed to some form of materialism, in the sense
of believing that matter is primary. From the viewpoint espoused here,
this would be a form of idolatry: worshipping the created instead of
the Creator. Well, depending on the details, of course; "worship" may
be a bit strong.
On 16/02/2026 05:42, Paul S Person wrote:
You appear to have succumbed to some form of materialism, in the sense
of believing that matter is primary. From the viewpoint espoused here,
this would be a form of idolatry: worshipping the created instead of
the Creator. Well, depending on the details, of course; "worship" may
be a bit strong.
Peppermint slice, drugs (including coffee, alcohol), hot and spicy
Korean fried chicken, salmon, scallops, prawns....
Guilty of succumbing.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:55:25 |
| Calls: | 812 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
1 files (3,740K bytes) |
| Messages: | 210,189 |