Subject:
|
Re: Critical Thinking
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Dec 2000 03:55:16 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
johnneal@uswest.^NoMoreSpam^net
|
Viewed:
|
897 times
|
| |
|
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
>
> Don't you get it?
>
> > I'm saying it is inconsistent to expect proof of God's existence
> > when that is by definition not possible. Science and religion are
> > separate realms, so don't hold one up to the other as a test of its
> > validity.
>
> Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening?
It is you, sir, who hasn't been listening.
> That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can
> use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But when you come round and
> ask me to believe,
NEVER ASKED YOU TO BELIEVE ONCE. Go back and check.
> I politely decline unless you use metrics of my choosing.
Okay, here is my point (again). If I turned water in wine right in front of
your eyes, what I am hearing you say is that you wouldn't believe it to be a
miracle. First, you'd try to explain it rationally. When you couldn't
(because there would be no rational explanation), you would finally assert that
there is a rational explanation, you just don't know it yet, and leave the
whole matter. You are not able to admit that a miracle is a possibility. What
possible cause would you have to not consider that option? Because it doesn't
fit into the scientific method. But please tell me why that if something can't
be explained by science, it doesn't exist. That is just illogical. Especially
since science will never ever be able to explain the very first occurrence in
the universe!
Please don't get me wrong. I think science is swell. It just isn't very
useful when talking about religion. So why insist upon using a metric which is
so poorly suited to evaluate the subject?
> And when you come round and *demand* that I believe (and there are laws
> influenced by believers a lot worse than wednesday closings) I shoot back.
No idea where you are here-- please signal all turns.
-John
> Now shut up about it, unless you're in a thread that specifically started as
> a religious one.
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| (...) In a way, it's because time itself doesn't really exist "at the beginning." All the rules are off before, I believe, the first microsecond after the bang or poof or whatever-- our understanding of things Science can only take us so far, (...) (24 years ago, 5-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Critical Thinking
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Don't you get it? (...) Don't you get it, man? Haven't you been listening? That's fine that they are separate realms. It's just fine and dandy. You can use whatever metrics you like for your beliefs. But (...) (24 years ago, 3-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
198 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
|
|
|
|
