Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:08:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4460 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
<snip>
> > Occam's Razor - the onus is on YOU to explain how an omniscient being
> > just came into being, then created the universe.
>
> Here's how: The omniscient, omnipotent being always was, {by definition}.
> Irrational? You bet.
<snip>
> So you are saying that there is only meaning in the rational? Is there
> meaning in love? Can you explain love rationally?
>
> [JOHN]
jumping in here again with this brief blurb--
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20061023/cm_huffpost/032164
"
Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' -
'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never
come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of
discourse:
To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from
college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its
legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of
nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as
scientists.
This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then
realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a
scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis
in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of
universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could
clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular
demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of
science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a
scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote
prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course,
although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse
(how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such
well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.
"
the whole article is a lengthy read and it'll take some time to parse, but a
ffew good points there.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament - More Teachings of Jesus
|
| (...) Here's how: The omniscient, omnipotent being always was, by definition. Irrational? You bet. (...) Are you suggesting that this stuff is in some way simple? (...) Though we've met a few times, you don't really know me that well because I'm (...) (18 years ago, 25-Oct-06, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
86 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
|
|
|
|
