Subject:
|
Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 6 May 2005 14:15:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1057 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
|
| |
| |
You lost me there. What’s a concrete thing that science can’t address?
|
“I am speaking about Creation.”
|
How’s that concrete? I’m not seeing the creation myth as at all concrete.
|
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
logic and beyond the peruse of Science.
I thought we all had agreed that Science had nothing to say about Creation. But
certainly you can’t deny that it occured. Creation is the elephant in the room
of Science.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Ya wanna talk about legislating morality?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (19 years ago, 6-May-05, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
46 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
