|
Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT)
| Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215056] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 18:24 |
|
Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
territory now ;)
*prepares cauldron*
Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html
George, for your reference, Troels is a much smarter physics major,
which is why I'm trying to pull him in here. I may make mistakes, but
he won't.
George Kerby wrote:
> On 2/3/06 6:59 AM, in article
> 1138971564.185539.30510 [at] g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "Aaron"
> <aaronsan [at] msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey George. A while ago you posted an "interesting" link from gosai.com
> > about the "failure of science." I tried to discuss it with you, but you
> > gave no further replies. I'm not trying to resurrect the entire set of
> > arguments I had with the webpage, but you really need to know a few
> > things about that article and its conclusions.
> >
> > Before I start, don't get defensive like you usually do. It closes off
> > your mind. Yes, I'm agnostic so we don't see eye-to-eye about God. But
> > you have to realize that agnostics and atheists don't insist we have
> > PROOF that there isn't a God. We simply insist that science can explain
> > the universe just as well as a supreme being, so we don't have a reason
> > to believe in God. There is no proof that God did what the bible says.
> >
> > This doesn't mean there is no God, and we agnostics certainly
> > acknowledge that, even thought the atheists do not. It merely means we
> > choose not to believe in Him, since there is no need for Him to
> > actually exist, and there is no proof that He actually exists.
> >
> > OK, now that that's out of the way...
> >
> > This was the link:
> > "You might just read this though:
> > http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html"
> >
> > Ok, something seemed out-of-date or wrong with everything in this
> > article when I first read it, and then I just now looked at the
> > references and I figured it out. They're all from 25+ years ago, even
> > when citing scientists who are alive today!
> >
> > Here's a perfect example: The article uses a quote from Stephen
> > Hawking, still alive and kick--well, not kicking, but alive, from
> > 1974!!!!! This quote is about how arrival at a singularity implies that
> > a theory is wrong.
> >
> > This, indeed, would be a dramatic conclusion, if Hawking still agreed
> > with it. He does not. Find me a good scientist who does...you probably
> > can't. The most convenient reference I had at hand was "The Universe in
> > a Nutshell" by Hawking, though I have other books in my "library"
> > "written" by Hawking.
> >
> > In short, he fully acknowledges the reality of singularities, which are
> > used in defining black holes and the "cosmic egg."
> >
> > I don't think you or I, or anyone else on this group for that matter,
> > are intelligent enough in the sciences to determine that he is
> > incorrect.
> >
> > Another interesting thing in that book is that he sneers at religious
> > types who insist that God planted the fossils that misled Darwin into
> > creating his theory of evolution. The fossil evidence *does* support
> > evolution, even though the article you posted says the fossil record
> > does not.
> >
> > In short, the article you stand by was written by an intelligent person
> > who refuses science completely, and uses outdated quotes to "prove"
> > his/her beliefs. This, my friend, actually IS bad science. What he/she
> > tries to refute is NOT bad science.
> >
> > Now, back to your regularly scheduled program (24).
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
> Like your subject line says: OT.
>
> If you want to take this offline, the addy is good.
>
> Empirical scientific study seems beyond your grasp, though.
-Aaron
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215059 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 19:42 |
|
Aaron escribió:
> Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
> territory now ;)
> *prepares cauldron*
>
>
>
> Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
> biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
> even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
> science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
>
I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
ago (although I don't resent to know it).
Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215060 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 19:52 |
|
drusilla wrote:
> Aaron escribi=F3:
> > Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
> > territory now ;)
> > *prepares cauldron*
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
> > biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
> > even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
> > science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
> >
>
> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
> personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
> 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
> that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
> life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
> ago (although I don't resent to know it).
>
> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
of going to church!
the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215066 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 20:29 |
|
drusilla wrote:
> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> my principal problems of life.
I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215069 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 20:54 |
|
Steven Sousa wrote:
> drusilla wrote:
>
> > I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> > my principal problems of life.
>
> I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
> like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
Yeah I agree, science has proved extremely useful, as there are many
cures and vaccinations for diseases. God doesn't heal if you pray, I
know from personal experience.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215071 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 21:01 |
|
clairey wrote:
>
> Steven Sousa wrote:
> > drusilla wrote:
> >
> > > I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> > > my principal problems of life.
> >
> > I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
> > like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
>
> Yeah I agree, science has proved extremely useful, as there are many
> cures and vaccinations for diseases. God doesn't heal if you pray, I
> know from personal experience.
Well it'd be hard to heal, or do anything in fact, if you are nothing
about a figment of human imagination :)
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215073 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 21:25 |
|
Steven Sousa wrote:
> I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
> like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
I wonder if America's religious right would have such disdain for
science if American military superiority started to suffer in the
future because there was nobody capable of designing and building
high-tech weaponry. Or would they switch to faith-based warfare?
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215074 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 21:30 |
|
"Jane Grey" <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1138992735.438169.225510 [at] g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
drusilla wrote:
> Aaron escribió:
> > Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
> > territory now ;)
> > *prepares cauldron*
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
> > biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
> > even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
> > science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
> >
>
> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
> personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
> 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
> that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
> life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
> ago (although I don't resent to know it).
>
> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
of going to church!
the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
Actually, there's more to the god thing than that. I refer you to the work
of Carl Jung and the eminently useful tool of the archetype.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215076 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 22:45 |
|
clairey wrote:
> Steven Sousa wrote:
> > drusilla wrote:
> >
> > > I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> > > my principal problems of life.
> >
> > I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
> > like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
>
> Yeah I agree, science has proved extremely useful, as there are many
> cures and vaccinations for diseases. God doesn't heal if you pray, I
> know from personal experience.
I always thought science answers questions about what you can do and
religion answers questions about what you should do. Religion has a
very important role to play in society but I wouldn't want to fly in a
plane designed by someone who studied in religious school and who
thought that God would solve any mistakes he made like if he put the
wings on backwards.
On the other hand I'd rather go to a good minister than a scientist to
discuss personal problems.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215078 ] |
Fr, 03 Februar 2006 23:12 |
|
scenario_dave wrote:
> clairey wrote:
> > Steven Sousa wrote:
> > > drusilla wrote:
> > >
> > > > I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> > > > my principal problems of life.
> > >
> > > I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
> > > like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
> >
> > Yeah I agree, science has proved extremely useful, as there are many
> > cures and vaccinations for diseases. God doesn't heal if you pray, I
> > know from personal experience.
>
> I always thought science answers questions about what you can do and
> religion answers questions about what you should do.
We don't need religion to tell us what we should do and we don't need
the fear of the wrath of God to make us toe the line anymore; we have
the law and punishment for those now.
> Religion has a
> very important role to play in society
Religion DID have an important role but now we have science and laws
and karoke.
> but I wouldn't want to fly in a
> plane designed by someone who studied in religious school and who
> thought that God would solve any mistakes he made like if he put the
> wings on backwards.
would anyone let someone like that build a commercial plane?
> On the other hand I'd rather go to a good minister than a scientist to
> discuss personal problems.
you don't need a good minister for that -wouldn't a therapist or a
friend be better?
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215081 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:06 |
|
<snip>
>> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve
>> any of my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all
>> buried by personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all:
>> Oh, yes: 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take
>> this and that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have
>> seen that my life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't
>> know few years ago (although I don't resent to know it).
>>
>> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
>
> But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
> something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
> be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
> of going to church!
>
> the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science; so far I
haven't found a contradiction.
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215082 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:18 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
<snip>
> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science; so far I
> haven't found a contradiction.
What about the Bible?
> Ken
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215083 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:24 |
|
Actually, after reading only the first few paragraphs I can see where he
went awry. He was/is trying a frontal assault on science without
understanding where the "scientific" mentality came from.
Most of the science we have today is based upon the Theory of Naturalism
which holds that everything can be explained in terms of natural cause and
law without assigning any moral, spiritual or supernatual significance to it
whatsoever.
The first part of this theory is fine because everything can be explained in
terms of natural cause and law. The rest of it, however, is where we have
gotten ourselves into a lot of trouble. If we do not pay attention to the
moral implications of what we are doing we are just asking for trouble. If
we deny the spiritual then we are, in my opinion at least, denying ourselves
and closing ourselves off from a whole heck of a lot of interesting
information. And so far as th supernatural is concerned, that all depends
upon where you wish to draw the line between natural and supernatural.
BB
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215087 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:27 |
|
Jane Grey wrote:
> Here in Minnesota wrote:
> <snip>
>> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
>> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
>
> What about the Bible?
>
>> Ken
Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything I have
learned from science. Can you think of anything?
Ken
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215089 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 00:38 |
|
In message <news:43e3a4da$0$27794$6d36acad [at] titian.nntpserver.com>
drusilla <gammanormids*erasethis* [at] gmail.com> enriched us with:
>
<snip>
> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve
> any of my principal problems of life.
Please don't get me wrong, Drusilla, but I think that you're off the
mark here. It is obvious that science hasn't solved any of your
problems in life, whether principal or not, because if it had, they
wouldn't be problems.
The question you have to ask yourself is what your principal problems
would be if we did /not/ have the scientific and technological level we
have today.
First of all it is unlikely that you would even exist -- the world
would be unable to sustain the population it has now outside the most
undeveloped countries, and the mortality rates -- particularly of
infants -- would be staggering everywhere.
If you were 'lucky' enough to be alive, you would be wondering where to
find your next bite of food -- any edible plants nearby? Or possibly an
animal fell into the trap you made?
There is no way that we can imagine what kind of hell life would be
without science -- the stress factor of our modern life is nothing next
to that.
> Honestly, when you're all buried by personal troubles, what
> science really do? Nothing at all:
except for actually allowing you the luxury of having, and being aware
of, these personal problems. Science solves the most of the layers of
Maslow's hierarchy of nees, and the lowest layers in particular are
simply taken care of without you having to work for it, and you
complain because you have problems fulfilling the upper layers?
> Oh, yes: 'you're depressed because this or that: you should
> take this and that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems.
Try living for a couple of months without science, and you might
realise how insignificant these problems really are compared to those
you get without science.
> I have seen that my life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff
> I didn't know few years ago (although I don't resent to know it).
Oh, and because /you/ don't know how to feed a thousand people from the
land that really ought only to feed fifty, or to create the apparatus
that can save your kids from cancer, the science that does these things
on a daily basis is worthless?
Try asking the lady down the street (or wherever she may live) whose
kids were saved from leukemia by radiology if she thinks science is
worthless.
> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
What's the dichotomy?
Loads of scientists choose /both/ God and Science -- they don't have
any problems with that as they realise that science can't tell you
anything about God. The problem isn't that science can disprove God,
but that it can disprove the literal interpretation of holy books that
is so common. More intelligent believers (of all faiths) are quite
capable of reading their holy books as metaphors. So what if Jesus was
just some common robberer? It doesn't matter in the least for what the
Christian Bible is all about, does it? Does anything at all in that
book have to be historical truth for the book to have any value?
Nonsense! The actual historical truth in the Bible is probably mostly
accidental -- people failed to edit it out, but that doesn't change the
metaphorical value of the text.
Science is about the objective, observable reality that surrounds us.
God is per definition not a part of that. Disproving the ludicrous
statements by religious fanatics (for instance that the Earth is less
than 10,000 years old) does /not/ constitute a proof against God, only
against strictly human statements (which is what the Bible consists
of).
So, you dont' have to choose between God and Science -- those who claim
that you do fail to understand both. You do, however, have to make a
choice between the scientists and the people who claim that everything
in the 'Quran/Bible/Vedas/Tora/whatever is literal truth. Just recall
that if you reject the scientists, you must also reject the opportunity
to have yourself or your kids saved by their sciences.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to
pray to.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215097 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 01:42 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> Jane Grey wrote:
> > Here in Minnesota wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
> >> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
> >
> > What about the Bible?
> >
> >> Ken
>
> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything I have
> learned from science. Can you think of anything?
>
> Ken
I've not read the Bible but I've heard the Bible was pretty rife with
contradictions with modern common knowledge; like lions killing via
strangulation and lions at some point becoming herbivores and eating
straw. buildings being able to catch plagues of leprosy.
Also doesn't the Bible contradict itself a few times? like twice it
says the Flood lasted 40days and another time it says it lasted a year?
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215098 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 02:02 |
|
In article <Dcqdnb7PeKGFMn7enZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d [at] adelphia.com>, Steven Sousa
<ssousa [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
>drusilla wrote:
>
>> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
>> my principal problems of life.
>
>I hope you don't hold to that next time you are in need of medicine. I'd
>like your chances with a doctor a lot better than if you prayed for healing.
Can I hear an AMEN!!!
My father came to redneck country (picture *Pleasantville*), as one of the
war losers in the early fifties, and established one of the most respected
and successful medical practices in town.
How did he do it?
Amongst other factors, his practice was the only one in town to have a
back door. It was gladly used by Christian scientists, who wielded great
influence in the community, and could not afford to lose face. He saved
many a life from the rabid convictions of a parent or partner. Others,
especially young children, DID die very hideous and covered-up deaths. (He
was also the first to make house-calls on black patients.)
If it hurts, if it itches, if it stinks, if it drips, if it's numb, if
it's growing, if it has an abnormal color, if it sounds funny when you
touch it, if it can't stop screaming and if you still don't understand why
your instant horcrux encasement spell doesn't work just after that
rebounding AK has returned to you - don't waste God's time!!
Make an appointment with your local medicine man or witch doctor! He/she
is experienced in connecting faith with science. Both are often
inseparable.
--
Chris
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215105 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 03:32 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
>
> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything I have
> learned from science. Can you think of anything?
How about all of the things in the Bible that contradict other things in
the Bible?
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215107 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 03:58 |
|
"Aaron <aaronsan [at] msn.com>" wrote:
> Check out this link he gave me, when I said that science removes the
> necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
>
> http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html
I take issue with the first sentence:
Scientists generally insist that all phenomena can be described, in
principle, in terms of measurable quantities which can be calculated
using simple mathematical laws[.]
I consider myself a scientist, and I would say it thus:
Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only when we
have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which we have no
measurements, scientific investigation is not useful. No math,
no science. When we do have measurements, scientific reasoning
cannot be ignored.
This doesn't eliminate God from considerations of reality, it simply
recognises that, per the rules, we can't consider Him. When analysing
a chess board, one is limited to the pieces and their positions. We
do not discuss the morality of sacrificing a knight to capture a queen.
Morality doesn't enter into an analysis of the position. It's not that
there is no morality, it's just that morality isn't really relevant to
whether the current position is checkmate or not. It is, or it isn't,
and matters off the board don't count.
Thus with science and theology/ethics/etc. Science can give us facts
about what's happening, but not about what SHOULD happen. You can't
go from "is" to "ought" by any method of logical reasoning.
*
In another article, "Aaron <aaronsan [at] msn.com>" also wrote:
> I tire of you, George.
Well, you're posting an awful lot of off-topic stuff to him, which may
be wearing you out. If you're really tired of Mr Kerby, maybe you could
try not engaging with him for a couple of months.
Darren Provine ! kilroy [at] elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy
"The conflict between science and religion [...] is like the conflict
between a podiatrist and a poet. One says that Susie Smith has fallen
arches. The other says she walks in beauty like the night. In his
own way, each is speaking the truth. What is at issue is the kind of
truth you're after." -- Frederick Buechner, _Wishful Thinking_
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215109 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 04:50 |
|
Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
: drusilla wrote:
:
:> Aaron escribi?:
:> > Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
:> > territory now ;)
:> > *prepares cauldron*
:> >
:> >
:> >
:> > Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
:> > biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
:> > even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
:> > science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
:> >
:>
:> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
:> my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
:> personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
:> 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
:> that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
:> life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
:> ago (although I don't resent to know it).
:>
:> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
:
: But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
: something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
: be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
: of going to church!
:
: the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
Common sense (if you have it) will tell you that the existence of
an Infinitely First Cause (aka God) is required for anything whatsoever
to exist,and that the existence of anything whatsoever proves that an
Infinitely First Cause must exist;but there's no credible evidence that
the IFC writes books,founds official fan clubs,selects ethnic favorites,
or any of the other stuff used to justify the existence of religious
organizations.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215110 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 04:51 |
|
Here in Minnesota <neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
: <snip>
:>> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve
:>> any of my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all
:>> buried by personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all:
:>> Oh, yes: 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take
:>> this and that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have
:>> seen that my life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't
:>> know few years ago (although I don't resent to know it).
:>>
:>> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
:>
:> But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
:> something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
:> be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
:> of going to church!
:>
:> the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
:
: I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science; so far I
: haven't found a contradiction.
:
: Ken
Christianity,like other religions,pumps genuine generic God full
of brand-name adulterants in order to sell its product.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215111 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 04:52 |
|
Here in Minnesota <neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
: Jane Grey wrote:
:> Here in Minnesota wrote:
:> <snip>
:>> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
:>> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
:>
:> What about the Bible?
:>
:>> Ken
:
: Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything I have
: learned from science. Can you think of anything?
:
: Ken
Like the stuff about sitting on the edge of a world
shaped like a plate,and a sky hanging over it like
a curtain?
Ever read ASIMOV'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE?
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215116 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 06:14 |
|
Jane Grey wrote:
> Here in Minnesota wrote:
>
>> Jane Grey wrote:
>>> Here in Minnesota wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
>>>> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
>>>
>>> What about the Bible?
>>>
>>>> Ken
>>
>> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything
>> I have learned from science. Can you think of anything?
>>
>> Ken
>
> I've not read the Bible <snip>
Not even once out of curiosity?
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215117 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 06:15 |
|
Steven Sousa wrote:
> Here in Minnesota wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything
>> I have learned from science. Can you think of anything?
>
> How about all of the things in the Bible that contradict other things
> in the Bible?
Which contradictions did you read that you were thing about?
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215119 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 06:40 |
|
Louis Epstein wrote:
> Here in Minnesota <neverwillicheckthis [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Jane Grey wrote:
>>> Here in Minnesota wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
>>>> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
>>>
>>> What about the Bible?
>>>
>>>> Ken
>>
>> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything
>> I have learned from science. Can you think of anything?
>>
>> Ken
>
> Like the stuff about sitting on the edge of a world
> shaped like a plate,and a sky hanging over it like
> a curtain?
These are called metaphors. I'm not sure if the "sitting on the edge of a
world shaped like a plate" metaphor is in the Bible but I do know that the
Bible does use metaphors as most books. When Shakespeare said that "All the
world's is a stage"... people don't think that he was confused on the makeup
of the world. It's amazing when one reads "the sun rises..." in most any
book [even science books] they understand the expression but not if it's in
the Bible.
Ken
I'm not trying to be tricky... I have read the Bible several times [it takes
about the same time as reading the Harry Potter books] and I grew up with a
dad who was a scientist. I'm not afraid of someone showing me a
contradiction between science and the Bible. I have enough faith in science
and the Bible. There are lots of people who talk of all the contradictions.
.. The amazing thing is how few people who "know" of hundreds of
contradictions can show them.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215120 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 06:44 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> Loads of scientists choose /both/ God and Science -- they don't have
> any problems with that as they realise that science can't tell you
> anything about God. The problem isn't that science can disprove God,
> but that it can disprove the literal interpretation of holy books that
> is so common. More intelligent believers (of all faiths) are quite
> capable of reading their holy books as metaphors. So what if Jesus was
> just some common robberer? It doesn't matter in the least for what the
> Christian Bible is all about, does it?
I agreed with you right up until the last two sentences - at which point
the argument went a bit pear shaped. Christianity is explicitly about
faith in Christ - the messiah, the Son of God. So that part does
matter. If you separate Christ from Christianity, and believe that we
don't really know anything about God, then what you have is not
Christianity but a bland agnostic theism.
Fortunately, the first part of your argument still stands - many
scientists do indeed choose both God [Christ] and Science.
(And indeed God is by definition impossible to disprove, including
Christ - if the universe was designed by God, and God made up the rules,
then science can't say very much about whether or not He can break any
of them from time to time. Genesis may well be a metaphor, but that's
hardly surprising given that there is another creation story told in
John. What has come up occasionally about Jesus is arguments amongst
historians, who base their theories of far less evidence than scientists
do, and without the advantage of being able to test their theories. [And
with the unfortunate incentive that it is easier to make book sales by
being 'shocking' and disagreeable than by saying 'everything's fine']
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215129 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 11:18 |
|
In message <news:ds159c$p45$1 [at] pcls4.std.com>
Dr Nancy's Sweetie <kilroy [at] elvis.rowan.edu> enriched us with:
>
> "Aaron <aaronsan [at] msn.com>" wrote:
>>
>> Check out this link he gave me, when I said that science removes
>> the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
>>
>> http://www.gosai.com/science/failure-of-science.html
>
> I take issue with the first sentence:
>
> Scientists generally insist that all phenomena can be
> described, in principle, in terms of measurable quantities
> which can be calculated using simple mathematical laws[.]
>
> I consider myself a scientist, and I would say it thus:
>
> Scientific reasoning works only with measurements: only when
> we have a number and a unit. Thus, topics for which we have
> no measurements, scientific investigation is not useful. No
> math, no science. When we do have measurements, scientific
> reasoning cannot be ignored.
Well said! (I hope I may borrow when the occasion arises?)
Science generally has a 'domain' where it applies -- Newtonian
physics apply at small velocities, biology applies to living (or
once-living) organisms (not counting biochemistry) etc. etc. One
thing that ties it all together is that it must be observable and
testable by observation, and that puts the Divine solidly out of
reach for science.
Many 'followers' or 'believers' in science (ultimately we do have to
take 'on faith' e.g. the existence of an objective and observable
reality as well as our experimental equipment's ability to correctly
quantify that reality) make the error of extending the domain of
science beyond it's proper bounds, and the same typically applies the
other way around as well: many religious believers try to extend the
domain of the divine to encompass the domain of science.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement.
But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another
profound truth.
- Niels Bohr
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215148 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 15:44 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> Jane Grey wrote:
> > Here in Minnesota wrote:
> >
> >> Jane Grey wrote:
> >>> Here in Minnesota wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> I'm Selfish. I choose all of God [Christianity] and all of Science;
> >>>> so far I haven't found a contradiction.
> >>>
> >>> What about the Bible?
> >>>
> >>>> Ken
> >>
> >> Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything
> >> I have learned from science. Can you think of anything?
> >>
> >> Ken
> >
> > I've not read the Bible <snip>
>
> Not even once out of curiosity?
Actually when i stayed at the Beacon hotel on Broadway, NY I found a
bible in one of the draws and did flick it open and came across a list
of names of who married who and gave birth to who. Zzzzzzz. Needless
to say I put it away and went to bed.
But I hear it should be rated 18 for the violent and sexual content...
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215149 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 15:50 |
|
Louis Epstein wrote:
> Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> : drusilla wrote:
> :
> :> Aaron escribi?:
> :> > Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
> :> > territory now ;)
> :> > *prepares cauldron*
> :> >
> :> >
> :> >
> :> > Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
> :> > biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
> :> > even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
> :> > science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
> :> >
> :>
> :> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
> :> my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
> :> personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
> :> 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
> :> that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
> :> life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
> :> ago (although I don't resent to know it).
> :>
> :> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
> :
> : But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
> : something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
> : be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
> : of going to church!
> :
> : the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
>
> Common sense (if you have it) will tell you that the existence of
> an Infinitely First Cause (aka God) is required for anything whatsoever
> to exist,and that the existence of anything whatsoever proves that an
> Infinitely First Cause must exist;
So, if something exists, something else must have existed in order to
create it? if that's the case, who made the IFC?
> but there's no credible evidence that
> the IFC writes books,founds official fan clubs,selects ethnic favorites,
> or any of the other stuff used to justify the existence of religious
> organizations.
showing that humans have currupted the idea of God does not impact on
the notion that God never existed.
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215156 ] |
Sa, 04 Februar 2006 16:35 |
|
Here in Minnesota wrote:
> Steven Sousa wrote:
>
>>Here in Minnesota wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes; I haven't read anything in the Bible that contradicts anything
>>>I have learned from science. Can you think of anything?
>>
>>How about all of the things in the Bible that contradict other things
>>in the Bible?
>
>
> Which contradictions did you read that you were thing about?
Here's a few for you to start with:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/short.html
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215192 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 02:48 |
|
> > Religion has a
> > very important role to play in society
>
> Religion DID have an important role but now we have science and laws
> and karoke.
Religion is still very important to a lot of people. It can still be
useful for teaching basic morality when kept in check. When religion
goes of the deep end, you get 911.
> > but I wouldn't want to fly in a
> > plane designed by someone who studied in religious school and who
> > thought that God would solve any mistakes he made like if he put the
> > wings on backwards.
>
> would anyone let someone like that build a commercial plane?
When far right religious zealots come to power, they frequently care
more about religious conformity than in minor things like peoples
lives. In a religious dictatorship, people are frequently hired
because of religious orthodoxy, not skill. I would not be suprised in
the least if the talaban had an factory making aircraft, that it would
be run by a religious leader and not an engineer or even businessman.
>
> > On the other hand I'd rather go to a good minister than a scientist to
> > discuss personal problems.
>
> you don't need a good minister for that -wouldn't a therapist or a
> friend be better?
True but thats why i said a good minister. A really good minister can
act as a therapist, thats why they're so few and far inbetween.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215196 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 04:58 |
|
Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
:> Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
:> :
:> : drusilla wrote:
:> :
:> :> Aaron escribi?:
:> :> > Cross-post party! (beware, religious Republican, you're in enemy
:> :> > territory now ;)
:> :> > *prepares cauldron*
:> :> >
:> :> >
:> :> >
:> :> > Hey Troels! This guy needs some help understanding physics, and
:> :> > biology, and all that tricky science stuff. The problem is, he doesn't
:> :> > even realize that. Check out this link he gave me, when I said that
:> :> > science removes the necessity for a God to exist. It's, uhh...great.
:> :> >
:> :>
:> :> I can perfectly live without science at all, which hasn't resolve any of
:> :> my principal problems of life. Honestly, when you're all buried by
:> :> personal troubles, what science really do? Nothing at all: Oh, yes:
:> :> 'you're depressed because this or that: you should take this and
:> :> that'... So, big help! That won't stop my problems. I have seen that my
:> :> life haven't improved at all by knowing stuff I didn't know few years
:> :> ago (although I don't resent to know it).
:> :>
:> :> Nah! I chose God: at least he gives me hope.
:> :
:> : But it's most likely false hope therefore any effort you put into
:> : something because of your belief in God is a waste of your time. You'd
:> : be better off doing homework or watching the discovery channel instead
:> : of going to church!
:> :
:> : the above is not just my opinion -it is not-so-common sense :)
:>
:> Common sense (if you have it) will tell you that the existence of
:> an Infinitely First Cause (aka God) is required for anything whatsoever
:> to exist,and that the existence of anything whatsoever proves that an
:> Infinitely First Cause must exist;
:
: So, if something exists, something else must have existed in order to
: create it? if that's the case, who made the IFC?
Ahem...see that "Infinitely"?
It obliterates the tired old "then-who-created-God" whine.
It is a defining attribute of the IFC that it ALONE is uncaused,
just as a sphere is defined by its center,and there can not be
any point within the sphere further from the surface than the
center.
:> but there's no credible evidence that
:> the IFC writes books,founds official fan clubs,selects ethnic favorites,
:> or any of the other stuff used to justify the existence of religious
:> organizations.
:
: showing that humans have currupted the idea of God does not impact on
: the notion that God never existed.
The notion of there being no God is completely absurd on its face.
Only because of the existence of a God can anything exist!!
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215208 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 10:53 |
|
scenario_dave wrote:
> > > Religion has a
> > > very important role to play in society
> >
> > Religion DID have an important role but now we have science and laws
> > and karoke.
>
> Religion is still very important to a lot of people. It can still be
> useful for teaching basic morality when kept in check. When religion
Different religions have different moralities and not all aspects are
in agreement with eachother. Religous conflicts brought about by these
differences cause unnecessary loss of life. Religion isn't /needed/
for teaching morality anymore, a lot of the morality lessons are out of
date anyways. Non-religious children pick up morality from adult
influences (real life and fiction) and there is not indication as far
as i'm aware that religious people don't turn to crime. While
religion-in-moderation still might do good for some people, it isn't
necessary anymore -there are better subsitiutes for all the purposes
religion used to serve.
> goes of the deep end, you get 911.
>
> > > but I wouldn't want to fly in a
> > > plane designed by someone who studied in religious school and who
> > > thought that God would solve any mistakes he made like if he put the
> > > wings on backwards.
> >
>
> > would anyone let someone like that build a commercial plane?
>
> When far right religious zealots come to power, they frequently care
> more about religious conformity than in minor things like peoples
> lives. In a religious dictatorship, people are frequently hired
> because of religious orthodoxy, not skill. I would not be suprised in
> the least if the talaban had an factory making aircraft, that it would
> be run by a religious leader and not an engineer or even businessman.
That is crazy extreme behaviour. I heard that in some parts of American
you can be turned down from a job or shunned from your neighbours by
being an atheist openly. Where do you draw the line?
> > > On the other hand I'd rather go to a good minister than a scientist to
> > > discuss personal problems.
> >
> > you don't need a good minister for that -wouldn't a therapist or a
> > friend be better?
>
> True but thats why i said a good minister. A really good minister can
> act as a therapist, thats why they're so few and far inbetween.
hmm, maybe ministers should be trained in therapy...
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215209 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 11:02 |
|
Louis Epstein wrote:
<snip>
> :> but there's no credible evidence that
> :> the IFC writes books,founds official fan clubs,selects ethnic favorites,
> :> or any of the other stuff used to justify the existence of religious
> :> organizations.
> :
> : showing that humans have currupted the idea of God does not impact on
> : the notion that God never existed.
>
> The notion of there being no God is completely absurd on its face.
> Only because of the existence of a God can anything exist!!
that is a huge assumption on your part.
there are many theories which suppose how things have come into
existence without a God. The idea of God is just another theory. But
unlike the scientific theories it will never be possible to prove it.
--
Jane Grey
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215213 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 11:35 |
|
In message <news:sbXEf.657$Z7.584 [at] newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
thingemy <whb21 [at] cam.ac.uk> enriched us with:
>
> Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>>
>> So what if Jesus was just some common robberer? It doesn't
>> matter in the least for what the Christian Bible is all
>> about, does it?
>
> I agreed with you right up until the last two sentences - at which
> point the argument went a bit pear shaped. Christianity is
> explicitly about faith in Christ - the messiah, the Son of God.
> So that part does matter. If you separate Christ from
> Christianity, and believe that we don't really know anything about
> God, then what you have is not Christianity but a bland agnostic
> theism.
My point, though perhaps poorly stated, was that I don't think it is
necessary to believe in the actual historicity of the tales in the New
Testament: to actually believe that things did happen in just that way
about two thousand years ago in our 'reality'. I think it is possible
to believe in Jesus Christ as a metaphor -- a metaphor which is
possibly (the historians, despite their problems, are generally better
at getting the truth out of their sources than what you credit them
for) mixed up with a historical person, a human being by the name
Jesus.
I am clearly aware that this viewpoint must be considered very
controversial, and since I am not all that well versed in Christian
dogma (nor have any ambitions to become that) it may well be that I am
overlooking something obvious.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
The trouble with being a god is that you've got no one to
pray to.
- /Small Gods/ (Terry Pratchett)
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215223 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 15:37 |
|
Louis Epstein wrote:
> Ahem...see that "Infinitely"?
> It obliterates the tired old "then-who-created-God" whine.
> It is a defining attribute of the IFC that it ALONE is uncaused,
> just as a sphere is defined by its center,and there can not be
> any point within the sphere further from the surface than the
> center.
If something can exist which was uncaused, why can that not be our universe?
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science(OT) [message #215248 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 19:34 |
|
Troels Forchhammer wrote:
>
> My point, though perhaps poorly stated, was that I don't think it is
> necessary to believe in the actual historicity of the tales in the New
> Testament: to actually believe that things did happen in just that way
> about two thousand years ago in our 'reality'. I think it is possible
> to believe in Jesus Christ as a metaphor -- a metaphor which is
> possibly (the historians, despite their problems, are generally better
> at getting the truth out of their sources than what you credit them
> for) mixed up with a historical person, a human being by the name
> Jesus.
It's certainly possible to the believe that, just as it's possible to
believe in "mystical healing powers of crystals" and other new age
philosophy, or to believe nothing in particular and just claim "I'm
spiritual", or to follow the recently popular belief in "whatever works
for you". But it would be entirely wrong to mistake that for
Christianity. Which is why I corrected your statement:
>>>So what if Jesus was just some common robberer? It doesn't
>>>matter in the least for what the Christian Bible is all
>>>about, does it?
The Christian Bible is "all about" Jesus (see Romans for a detailed
account of how this is true of both OT and NT).
Some historians are indeed good at getting the truth out - and it is
just as much a mistake to think that historians are universally lined up
against Jesus as to think that scientists are.
The bibliography at the foot of this Wikipedia page has some of the
references on each side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
and http://scholar.google.com is handy for finding references too.
However, as I say, it is the "shocking" historians that tend to come to
prominence in the public conciousness; to find the non-shocking
historians you tend to need to look to academic publishers, such as
Cambridge University Press, or religious outlets, or search for
published papers online. To find the "shocking" ones, you need to look
in your local bookstore.
(As and aside, CiteSeer only indexes science publications rather than
history, but it's interesting to note what comes back from typing
"Jesus" into CiteSeer.)
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215256 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 22:24 |
|
Steven Sousa <ssousa [at] adelphia.net> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
:
:> Ahem...see that "Infinitely"?
:> It obliterates the tired old "then-who-created-God" whine.
:> It is a defining attribute of the IFC that it ALONE is uncaused,
:> just as a sphere is defined by its center,and there can not be
:> any point within the sphere further from the surface than the
:> center.
:
: If something can exist which was uncaused, why can that not be our universe?
Because the existence of the Universe must be explained.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215257 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 22:26 |
|
Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
: Louis Epstein wrote:
: <snip>
:> :> but there's no credible evidence that
:> :> the IFC writes books,founds official fan clubs,selects ethnic favorites,
:> :> or any of the other stuff used to justify the existence of religious
:> :> organizations.
:> :
:> : showing that humans have currupted the idea of God does not impact on
:> : the notion that God never existed.
:>
:> The notion of there being no God is completely absurd on its face.
:> Only because of the existence of a God can anything exist!!
:
: that is a huge assumption on your part.
:
: there are many theories which suppose how things have come into
: existence without a God. The idea of God is just another theory.
No...any credible explanation for how things have come into
existence MUST involve a God,whether or not it admits this.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
| Re: Troels: Check this out: Re: Attention George Kerby, Mr. Un-Science (OT) [message #215258 ] |
So, 05 Februar 2006 22:29 |
|
Jane Grey <jane.grey [at] hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
: scenario_dave wrote:
:> > > Religion has a
:> > > very important role to play in society
:> >
:> > Religion DID have an important role but now we have science and laws
:> > and karoke.
:>
:> Religion is still very important to a lot of people. It can still be
:> useful for teaching basic morality when kept in check. When religion
:
: Different religions have different moralities and not all aspects are
: in agreement with eachother. Religous conflicts brought about by these
: differences cause unnecessary loss of life. Religion isn't /needed/
: for teaching morality anymore, a lot of the morality lessons are out of
: date anyways.
It is intrinsic in the nature of morality that it
can NEVER be "out of date"...something that can
change with the times is thereby proven not to be
an issue of morality (and something people like to
PRETEND can change with the times but really can't,
remains a moral value no matter what beliefs become
popular).
: While religion-in-moderation still might do good for some people, it
: isn't necessary anymore -there are better subsitiutes for all the
: purposes religion used to serve.
Religion properly understood is about ETERNAL values,
and nothing else.
And the only things that really matter derive their importance
from their inability to change,while whatever changes is therefore
of no lasting value.
-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Fr Mai 25 01:06:36 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,39777 Sekunden |
