| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > I agree. I would further ask John how he would demonstrate to someone
> > permanently locked indoors that wind exists.
>
> Feed him beans and cabbage...oh, sorry, not that type of wind. I'll just be
> moving along, then....
>
> >
> > > > It can't see it, it can't feel it, it can't taste it,
> > >
> > > Uh...sure it can. I can see, feel, and taste water (and air, for that matter)
> > > so why couldn't the fish? Actually, I'm rusty on my ichthyology, can they
> > > taste or just smell?
> >
> > I had salmon last night--it tasted great and smelled great. Does that
> > help? 8^)
>
> I have a dog with no nose.
>
> How does he smell?
>
> Terrible!
> (rimshot)
>
> >
> > > > Again, I can read the last chapter in a book and know whats going to happen.
> > > > The characters in the book don't have a clue. Does that deny their free
> > > > will to do as they please in the book?
> > >
> > > Do you hear yourself? I mean really! You just asserted that characters in
> > > books have free will. That was some kind of a slip up right?
> >
> > For those playing along at home, Dave K has just rolled out some rehashed
> > C. S. Lewis. Lewis, while an entertaining read, should hardly be taken as
> > logically infallible; witness the above "author-in-the-book" metaphor and
> > the oft-touted "liar/lunatic/lord" false trichotomy.
>
> It is possible that time is an illusion, or that the universe comes down to
> a few lines of code. In either case, we may well be a character in a book
> who's life can be read forward, backwards, and peeked at. Plays hell with
> free will, but science never cares about your personal feelings.
>
> > > > The laws of God are 'written
> > > > on our hearts'. It might be all touchy feely but it's there. You know when
> > > > you're doing something wrong--you don't need the police to tell you
> > > > that--you feel it. And none of that has anything to do with science.
> >
> > This is witnessing and irrelevant to discussions of science.
>
> Every time I point out that something is an emotional argument, the
> discussion string comes to a halt and easier targets are taken up.
>
> Bruce
This is *not* a discussion on the merits of science. I have stated time and
time again that I *love* science and what it does (for the most
bit--velcro--too much noise!)
One side of this discussion esteems science to be the *only* factor for
figuring out the way of everything, and everything else is either irrelevant
or does not exist.
The other side (anyway, my side) has been to state time and time again, that
science is wonderful for what it does, but cannot encompass *everything*, as
shown by, imho, the impeccable logic presented--there are concepts and
ideals that exist outside science and not once has *that* issue been
properly dealt with. The discussion string comes to a halt and a new easier
target coems up (a la morality).
Not once in *any* of my posts do I trash science. Maybe subliminal messages
(love science) will work (love science) to get my (love science) point
across (love science) And yet, in many posts the entire scope of
Christianity is trashed, either by equating the entire movement to the
idiotic zealots (who I have even condemned many times, taking the sides of
the worhsippers of science) or from the historical stupidity of
misinterpreting and misrepresenting *my* God.
Now it comes down to this:
Science = much merit.
*My* brand of Christianity *1 = much merit
I accept both. Can you?
So there you are.
Dave K.
*1 Being the ideas of Christian World Missions--out to save the starving
kids of the world, the sisters of the Catholic church who start up
orphanages in the poorest areas, and people like Billy Graham, as well as
the ability to adapt as new ideas present themselves.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) OK David, I wasn't trying to wriggle away from your point. And maybe I'm just slow, but I really don't get the impeccable logic that you're presenting. Let's focus on this one really small idea for a bit. What is it that to your way of (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) Feed him beans and cabbage...oh, sorry, not that type of wind. I'll just be moving along, then.... (...) I have a dog with no nose. How does he smell? Terrible! (rimshot) (...) It is possible that time is an illusion, or that the universe (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
