 | | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Funny. Here you argue against teleology (the world is as it is because it was {designed}) (...) And then here you finish an arguement {for} teleology. A question for you: Isn't it possible that these coincidental parts of physics (water being (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) It originated by a story about that, but I don't think anyone is defending it. It is more about a critique of Science WRT to the origin of the universe. JOHN (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: <snip> (...) And this may be the crux of my problem with Science. Science categorically denies the existence of anything it cannot investigate. It requires proof, something that is categorically (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) I will state again that my God isn't the 'god of the gap', so you don't have to go looking for it. Furthermore, I didn't consign 'God' to whatever science cannot answer. If that's the interpretation then I didn't make my point clear. Let's (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Actually, I think the technical reason is that God doesn't exist because there can be no *disproof* of God. IE, no matter what sort of tests you could set up, you'd never be able to *disprove* God's existance no matter what the outcome of (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Well, to expand upon the thoughts of the 'science camp' (which, if we wanna use isms, is Mechanistic Naturalism) - we can use Occam's Razor to cut away every explanation except the most simplistic. There is no supernatural diety, the entire (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Leonard Hoffman wrote: <snip> (...) And I would agree with the above--which God and such--all great questions. That said, the main agruement from the 'science camp' is that there can be no God because there is no proof (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) First of all, let's address this "Big Band" issue. I don't have much fondness for Lawrence Welk, but I guess Glenn Miller's okay. And Guy Lombardo? Don't get me started... (...) Not so fast! "Outside" is a dangerously tricky word in this (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) No one said that science was everything to everyone. Literature, for example, is outside the scope of science (for the time being). (...) Ahh.. see if only it were so simple. Is it a God (all powerful, omnipotent) or a god (limited (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: We're being attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of culture!
|
|
(...) Therefore science cannot encompass everything. That stated, something must exist outside of science. Let that something be God. Dave K (...) My math teacher in high school had that on his wall, along with other math related oddities. I (...) (19 years ago, 11-Apr-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
