Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 14:04:13 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1559 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> I already said don't accept what your senses tell you on faith.
Ah, but you do... can you PROVE that any of your senses will always be
consistant? I don't think so, at least. But you develop a trust-- a faith--
in your physical senses. You come to believe them, because they've been
consistant in the past. But can you PROVE that:
A. they will ALWAYS be so
B. that other 'inconsistant' senses aren't really being consistant in a way
you can't see?
Hence, who's to say in the theoretical world that one sense is NECESSARILY
better than anther?
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8867
> Compare perceptions. See what is consistent and follows a logical process.
Exactly! And as time goes on you have faith in your logical decision, even
though it hasn't been PROVEN. It's just been shown to be likely. After all,
isn't that all the scientific method can show us?
> You keep making the assumption that somehow, somewhere along the chain,
> scientists stop applying the logical process (which they do on occasions,
> but then they made a mistake in doing so, and then we are not talking about
> the scientific process).
Ah no-- They don't necessarily stop being logical... it's just that they
come to accept as fact that which is not necessarily so.
> I've addressed this continuously and you keep ignoring what I have said and
> restating the exact same thing over and over. You are simply playing a
> semantic game with the word "faith".
> ...
> Science=faith. Religion=faith. Therefore science=religion. And you just
> denied that that's what you were saying in another message. A specious
> conclusion based on two different applications of the word "faith" and
> hoping since the word is the same, no one notices the word as applied isn't
> the same.
Hopefully this'll clear up what I'm trying to say:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=8867
> And sure enough, you went right back to the semantic game. Sigh.
Oh? I've disclosed the definition of 'faith' I'm using (after the clear
misunderstanding), and you've done the same. Hence, you should know what I
mean when I say it, and I should know what you mean when you say it, yes? Or
do you think one of us is more right than the other?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Heck no! My right eye is slightly red shifted and my left eye sees slightly green shifted (relative to each other). Further, the effect is more pronounced when I wake up sometimes. (...) Clearly I can't. :-) (...) Or inconsistent in a way I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
