 | | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes: <snip> (...) <snip> People 'make gods' to explain things. I think that's a pretty much historically accurate statement. Not *all* people 'make up' gods--some folks don't have any gods, and (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
(This is a very interesting thread to follow, imo :) something isn't right here: (...) no, C1 will only follow if P1 said: P1: Science can explain only the physical universe. Which is not the claim that was made, I believe. I'm not sure what would (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
(...) This was kind of a sub-point that you took the wrong way. Instead of discussing the stuff that stems from that, I'd like to restate slightly. It seems when you claim that to some that science is a god _because_ those people assert that science (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes: <snip> (...) That about sums it up for me, as well. Nicely said. Dave K. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
(...) And I mention to you, Dave! right now, that questioning 'the reasoning for the assertion' instead of the 'reasons' for it, makes my point *even* more clear-- If I were to ask: Is black, black? I have my reasons for saying that this should be (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
(...) Faulty thinking and faulty assumptions again. Your having faith is an observable phenomenon that can be studied. Science would not deny that existence of your *having* faith -- it might study the chemical or physical reasons that you maintain (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | More pop-stuff from me :)
|
|
(URL) gonna spend part of my upcoming vacation reading this stuff (and others, too, I assure you) I love the 'Million Dollar Reward' concept for any demonstrable showing of a paranormal experience. Anywho, there you are. Dave K. (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Be careful what you ask for in case you actually get it (was: slight)
|
|
(...) Since you cast aspersions on Chris' reading comprehension in (URL) is inexcusable that you should fail to read his subsequent post correctly. He is not questioning the "reasons" for your assertion; he's questioning the "reasoning" for it. Can (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: slight
|
|
(...) I'd caution that "infinite" still does not mean "comprehensive," since we could in theory study the potential spatial relationships between two particles and find an infinite number of potential combinations, and that's just two particles. And (...) (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Science & religion are not the only options
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes: <snip> (...) Rats! Well, that one's out then... Dave (22 years ago, 18-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
