Starboy

Amos, the obvious explaination is that all religions have got it wrong.

Starboy

galiel

Which is it, Amos? The "cold science" that is only asserted by those ignorant of science and unfamiliar with scientists, or the type of "science" that in your opinion is only extrapolating from "revealed" truth?

Neither one has anything to do with actual science, which has nothing to do with "truth", but it would be helpful to know which strawman you have erected before setting it ablaze.



[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Baidarka

This is a bit silly but here goes. If we believe in the Garden of Eden and if we believe in Noah and his Ark then we must also admit that when Noah landed on a mountain top that he and his family would have no idea where they were ( not having a GPS ). No one in the post deluge times would ever be able to find and pre-flood land marks. Alas Eden is lost forever!

Anti-Creedance Front

I feel like being polemic, due to massive refutation by "religions of the book" people on this and related theories. But, you're the moderator, so I'll try not to snap on anyone. Anyway, I don't believe the flood covered the entire world. That is not possible at all based on the fact that the native Americans, Africans and Asians, not "knowing God", would have survived without a scratch. I do have a strong belief that there actually was one, though. It just didn't cover the entire world. If you look, the two sides of the Strait of Gibraltar are very close together. They were obviously once connected, and supposing that the Mediterranean was a desert beforehand (which people have found evidence to support), then the Strait of Gibraltar breaking would have caused a MASSIVE flood. I still will laugh at the Bible in light of the fact that the writers knew nothing of other civilizations, yet they were supposed to be speaking through a god who is all-seeing and omnipresent. Anyway, that said, in my view the Garden of Eden was a real place also. I think it was stretched out of proportion along with the flood. But "eden" certainly isn't the starting place of mankind. Perhaps the original home of the Mesopotamians. I don't think anyone doesn't take the Bible without at least a grain of salt these days. Even fundamentalists.

Amos

Slow down galiel, it wrong to suggest that in my opinion "science extrapolates from revealed truth" because not truth itself but the hypothesis is extrapolated and the experiment must confirm the revealed hypothesis. Hence the exhilleration of science is when it reveals truth as observed from the experiment.

I suppose in the second part of your post you suggesting that actual science is not after truth but just after evidence of truth.

galiel

Yes, that is wrong. You clearly do not understand how science works. Experiments are not conducted because they "must confirm the revealed hypothesis". Experiments are conducted to test the hypothesis, and in science one follows the results, no matter where they lead. In fact, a successful project involves many more failed hypotheses than proven ones, because that means knew knowledge is being acquired. It is not "revealed" because it is not known before hand, as you irrationally and unprovably claim.

Once again, you seek to misuse language and redefine terms in order to obfuscate in your psuedo-Gnostic way. Once again, I have no intention of letting you get away with it.

Neither. Science is about approximations. Science is about developing workable models of human experience. Science is utterly pragmatic. It is about what works, for everyone, everywhere, not what is claimed by self-appointed authorities. The universal principles science uses are not some divine laws that exist independently of our observation. They are merely pragmatic creations of human intelligence that are adopted to the extent that they have actual, consistent, explanatory power.

The nice thing about them is that they work no matter what you believe in. 2+2=4, E=MCsquared, gravity decreases to the square of the distance from its source and a molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom makes water, whether you are Presbyterian, Gnostic, Atheist or Flat-Earther.

Science is truly the only universal language that can unite all human beings.

Amos

But the 'idea,' or the 'illunination,' that we put to the test to see if it can be applied to everyone, everywhere, is inspired and if this was not true no test would be required and no new answer would ever be found. That is why I say that science is cold (for dummies) who will also argue that the world is round but still live in a flat world themselves and it is because their world is flat that they need to unite so they can see beyond their own humanity by which they are stupified . . . or inspiration could not be conceived to exist.

Starboy

Amos, I agree. Science is not a replacement for religion. But Christianity is not a replacement for religion either. Any religion that does not recognize the reality of the universe as it is understood today will be a complete failure. You may examine the wreck that is the religious landscape of today as evidence of this statement.

The reason is simple. In religion as it is practiced and understood in relation to the world as it is understood, the only place for god is the god of death. A life lived for death is not a life worth living.

Starboy

galiel

Define "inspired". New hypotheses build on prior knowledge, through the process of induction (not the same as deduction). "Inspiration" implies passive acquisition of knowledge from another source, which I suspect is why you are corrupting the language of science in order to inject religious terms. Why is "inspiration" necessary in order to require testing of a hypothesis?


Metaphorical non sequitur and sophistry meaning nothing.

galiel

Why not? I assume you can make a much more cogent argument than Amos's flat earth round earth non sequitur. Empirical evidence shows that historically, each scientific discovery has replaced a former religious supernatural explanation.

What religion can? "The reality of the universe as it is understood today" does not require supernatural explanation.