 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) 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. (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Wait, just got confused for a sec-- yes what? Yes you can prove both A & B? (I assume no) Yes you can prove that metaphysical senses AREN'T being consistant, AND that metaphysical senses are inconsistent in ways you can't see? Or yes you can (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) My brain hurts just reading that! :-) I was agreeing with you. (...) Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't. (...) That is correct. Well, (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) Er... oops. Meant to say: "I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by the scientific method..." (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere! But then again, maybe every one of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | (...) No, it's universal because any advanced (I'm speaking extra-terrestrial) society is going to come up with the exact same rules. Different languages, different morals, different outlooks, different values, but the math will be the same. Bruce (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
