 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | (...) But you can't just play in your little room of Science and have no opinions about concrete things that Science cannot address. I am speaking about Creation. (...) We have been given intellects, and some revelation along the way. Heck, we may (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —David Koudys
|
| | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: snip (...) Humble people don't go around telling other people that they have to start taking the 'specks out of their eyes', especially via legislation. And honest people realize that we're all flawed, (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) You lost me there. What's a concrete thing that science can't address? (...) Hmm? Hardwired how? Hardwired to believe in him (in spite of free will?) Or hardwired to want to believe in him? Not me. (...) Approximately one zillion things fueled (...) (20 years ago, 5-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) "I am speaking about Creation." (...) I was referring to our conscience. The knowledge deep down of right and wrong. (...) I'm citing a book whose title eludes me. I'll see if I can find it. In the mean time, I'll accept merely 1 million out (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) How's that concrete? I'm not seeing the creation myth as at all concrete. (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Everything that exists had to come from something. Whether you want to call Event 1 "God" or just "Some Random Occurance", neither fit into the model of Science. Even if you want to say that "the universe always was", that is still beyond (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's a false dilemma. The current (and correct) response is: "We currently don't have enough data to answer that question." (...) Suppose that one says "Current data suggests that the universe has always existed, in some form." How is that (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) But that's a disengenuous assertment. There will never be enough "data" to answer that question. It is unknowable. (...) Because there isn't or never will be any such data. The scientific method cannot explain the origin of something without (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Let's throw out the term "Creation" in this context, because it stacks the deck in favor your argument. Additionally, we've previously discussed the imprecision of term "Science" with a capital-S, so can we refer instead to science? The (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) I don't think that's quite right. On the one hand, let's think about lightning for a second. We have a pretty good idea how that gets generated nowadays. But for a long time science had nothing to say on the matter. Not enough data. Hence, to (...) (20 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) But that doesn't really get us anywhere. At most, Person B can say "I've thought it over, and I think you're correct about X. Of course, I have no way to verify that X was communicated to you via revelation, but I still like it." So X, whether (...) (20 years ago, 9-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| | | | |
