Re: And you keep say'n my concept of God . . .
. . has to correspond with the Christian good-guy / bad guy concept which you understand and despise - that my definition of religion is different from yours so it must be irrelevant. Heh!
Well, you keep giving it a capital G, and the word "God" in English has one very, very common meaning, so what is a chap to think?
The scientific evidence that there is anything at all is between these brackets []. The more scientists delve into the foundation of the universe the more they know about it and the less they find.
First sentence is meaningless. Fancy words, but ultimately sophistry. What you're basically saying is "we don't know jack", which is demonstrably not true. An assumption that there is an infinite amount of stuff to know will, naturally, bring the mathematical certainty that
infinity - a finite amount = infinity, but this does not alter the obvious fact that we clearly know
something.
"I saw in my hand something the size of a pea. I asked God 'what is this' and he answered 'That is all that has ever been created'" - Hildegard von Bingen - Abbess, mystic, composer (music still performed) - died 1179. A tad ahead of the science boys, huh?
I know who she is. I even bought her CD (Canticles of Ecstacy. It's OK, but one has to be in the mood for it). You don't have a monopoly on knowing who ancient religious nutters are.
I understand and respect your science. I use it every day in many ways, probably in more ways than you do. I also understand it quite beyond BMWs and computers. I am also open to there being something in the vast gaps science leaves untouched - and that those realms should be examined to the best of our ability. You are not because you haven't read about it in Popular Mechanics.
I don't read Popular Mechanics, and your assumption that you use science more than I do is just that - an assumption. I don't talk about my day job, because it's very specialised and crushingly dull to those outside the field. My scientific training includes chemistry, geography and information theory as well as the more humdrum computer programming and its ilk.
You're assuming (it's that word again) that there must be something in the gaps, and your assumption leads you (and religionists and woo-woos of all stripes) to fill those gaps with products of the human imagination.
The universe is more than wonderful enough as it stands to fill a chap with awe, without having to make shit up.
