Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:17:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1749 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or
> something, especially without logical proof
Ding ding! We have a winner! (although I'd qualify that 'logical proof' as
'proof', not 'logical proof')
> End paste. Note 1, 2 and 3. So no, I don't agree with you definition at
> all unless you want to qualify that yours is a faith system without logical
> proof and mine is a faith system with logical proof.
Logical proof? First off, what's logical proof? And second, prove logically
that all perceptions of physical events are more valid than all perceptions
of metaphysical events. Note, that's ALL perceptions by EVERYONE, not just
for you, since (I'm assuming) that you're attempting to make a more
universal conclusion about the nature of science vs. religion. If you just
logically prove that they're more valid for YOU, then you've made no
headway, and I'm curious to see what your point is.
> This is the same as
> saying NO, they are NOT equivalent. The whole thing you are trying to imply
> is that ultimately evolution is based on faith and not logical proof and
> therefore no different than faith in God, or creationism.
Not really, but kinda. The implication is that all things are based on faith
in our senses, and faith in our ability to correctly interpret our senses.
And, the conclusion is that in the theoretical world, evolution is no better
than creationism. But that's a clarification, because there are those who
would say that evolutionary theory is ALWAYS better than creationism, and I
disagree. However, I WILL say that I personally believe that evolutionary
theory IS a better theory for all humans, without really being able to back
that up other than with personal experiences, which doesn't disprove the
possibility for activity outside of those experiences.
> To clear things
> up in the future, lets refer to that which doesn't depend on logical proof
> and that which does and avoid the word faith instead of playing this
> semantic game.
Always best to get that semantic mess out of the way-- But it's too bad we
assume so much about what the other person might interpret via our words...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) We've been over the scientific process already. (...) I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith. We've been over this before. Time is a logical construct that we use, but in fact may be simply an illusion to our limited (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) #2 applies to yourself, and you are stretching #1 to apply to me and then are making the erroneus conclusion that they are equivalent. You further listing below does not support your assertation, and the further one I provided also doesn't. (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 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
|
|
|
|
