[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

Please don't do it just for me.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]

I guess what I meant was this: if someone were to actually take into consideration what I wrote as opposed to just dismissing it (because they don't even remotely consider the possibility that God is real and scripture is perfect), I would do it.

 

Man, since Garyj started these threads on God and religion, my posts per day went from around 0.2 to 2.5 or something. I think I'm gonna wear out my keyboard. Good thing work isn't busy these days (and that I'm not paying for the keyboard).

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JonBoy
[B]

Man, since Garyj started these threads on God and religion, my posts per day went from around 0.2 to 2.5 or something.

 

Look, it's the Token Tirade Against Science! I gotta say JonBoy, that what you say against science is very indicative of a person who just doesn't understand science. It is critical that you understand something before passing judgement upon it.

In my experience with theists, this type of argument is usually the final mudslinging monologue that immediately precedes a grumbling exit.

Let's pick it apart. This will be fun!

Truth: Very few scientists are actively concerned in any sort of work on "how creation occurred." Scientists are actively working on a model of how the world has worked since its creation, but most (if not all) scientists see the question of creation as a descent into pure philosophy.

Truth: Science really only requires faith in first principles -- in the axioms of rational thought, like the concept that 1 + 1 = 2, and the sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 in flat Euclidean space. The rest of science follows forth as a closed, logical, and provable consequence of those principles. To deny these axioms is to deny rational thought, and to return human intellectual understanding of the world to the 16th century. Apparently, many theists would like to do just that.

Truth: Once again, science doesn't claim dominion over "creation." I also don't know how you've associated "time travel" with science. Perhaps you're missing the important little word 'fiction?' Now, the space-time continuum -- boy, that sounds complicated and made-up, right? -- well, it's pretty simple. You take the location of a place in some space. Since the space is three-dimensional, we'll give it three labels, or coordinates, to mark its position. Now, we would like to also consider the time that something occurs. We'll again define a coordinate, a fourth one, for time. So now we can describe the location and time of any happening (an 'event' in physical terms) by a four-numbered thing called a vector. This vector exists in the mathematical space that is the concatenation of space and time, space-time. The space is the set of all events (all locations and all times), just like the Cartesian x-y plane is a space of all x coordinates and all y coordinates. That's your wild, fantastic, purely theoretical space-time continuum. Yes, in fact, it's just as theoretical as that familiar equation, "1 + 1 = 2."

Truth: As I've said, science has to assume basic axioms about the universe, and everything else is proved in terms of those axioms. The only way out of the dark alley of logical conclusion is to disprove one of the axioms. Good luck trying to show the world that pendula do not swing.

Truth: Well, okay, he's right here. Oh, and you can't explain time travel even when you DO get into physics. Maybe the little green men on Planet X will help us out.

Truth: You also don't understand the uncertainty commutators... they're another set of those closed-form, provable mathematical systems you so vehemently oppose.

Truth: We develop mathematical models of systems. We use those models to make predictions. We use experiments to verify or refute those predictions. We update the models in hopes of resolving the conflicts between theory and experiment. This is known as the scientific method. And what are these calibrators you're talking about? Would you like to provide an actual example, or just continue to espouse your anti-science rhetoric?

Truth: Science uses truths to prove science. Religion uses religion to prove religion. Most theists, when confronted with a logical argument, will start making references to the Bible, or blind faith. What kind of proof or absolute is that?

- Warren

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ltweintz
[B]

 

Just an observation...I'm pretty sure that most Christians believe that god is perfect (if you don't, then ignore this post). Following from that, if God was once satisfied with men, then later on was not, then wouldn't this imply imperfection on his part? Isn't perfection the quality that makes god so great? If god makes mistakes too, then why would he be any better than humans?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jay Li
[B]Just an observation...I'm pretty sure that most Christians believe that god is perfect (if you don't, then ignore this post).

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]Truth: Science really only requires faith in first principles -- in the axioms of rational thought, like the concept that 1 + 1 = 2, and the sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 in flat Euclidean space.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chroot
[B]Truth: Science really only requires faith in first principles -- in the axioms of rational thought, like the concept that 1 + 1 = 2, and the sum of the angles of a triangle are 180 in flat Euclidean space.