I am sorry, but i think that the last sentence more or less just states what i said right from the beginning. A new theory needs to provide better or more explanations than the last one. So i see no real disagreement here.
I only was confused when you stated that a new theory would have to...
I see where you are coming from.
Well i think we two just argue about a view here, not about a real difference.
For me he presented something better and thus replaced the old.
That is for me sufficient for a new theory.
Of course, but that is normal. Any new theory has to be better than the...
As said before: Einstein didn't explain the success of Newton.
No matter what it is called ... Newtons "laws" are of course wrong strictly speaking.
Concerning the term approximation it depends on the perspective you look at it from.
Seen from Newtons viewpoint it of course was no...
I think theism can be reasonable within itself, which means that within the doctrines of the faith you can of course try to argue rationally.
The problem with theism in general is that the doctrines can't be argued about and therefor it is unreasonable from a less limited perspective.
I disagree.
A new theory doesn't have to explain any "success" of an older one.
A new theory has to explain more natural phenomena than the older one or it has to explain the same phenomena better (more exact).
Einsteins theory for example eplained the perihelic turn that we can observer...
Why ?
And if truth comes from community and one has to trust "one's" community ... would that not equate to different truths for different communities ?
You have me somewhat confused as to the term truth.
You seem to state that there are documents, there are actions and there is some form of (yet undefined) reasoning. And these three things are the truth or form the truth.
What truth would that be and how would one "know" that it is truth.
My honest first thought if I see a lady that is attractive telling me she is lesbian is :
c) She doesnt want to have sex with me.
If that option is not allowed then i would take a)
I would agree that the first look is (at least for me) rather a sexual one.
Similarly the first thought that i...
i cant really think of much apart of what i mention below anyway.
Any nonconcensual sexual behaviour between matures [rape] and any sexual behaviour where an imature person is subject to a mature person [pedophilia].
The "best" thing i ever got was something the like of:
HIM: You see that trees exist don't you ?
ME: yes
HIM: See ... God must exist. How else could trees exist ?
This really sounds like an interesting statement.
I am wondering what the "so much more" is.
And i am wondering what criteria you have for asserting the truth of your particular interpretation of your religion. (perhaps not in this thread? )
I have not seen any demon lately.
I have not seen any demon for as long as i am capable of remembering.
I have not seen anybody else that verifiably has seen a demon, which means I have not seen any proof for a demon by anyone.
Looking at the supposed powers of demons i do not see any...
And i think it would be better to have a look at the relations of the two ideas (evolution, creationism) within german society before making such statements ;-)
Some 60 % believe in evolution, some 20 in creationism (in some form) and some 20 don't say anything or were undecided.
But of course...
I did a lot although i can't say it was always positive (or negative)
I would equate many muslims with creationists in america concerning that aspect. For me it seems the two are similar in more ways than they would like to admit. The real difference is that creationists reject science while...
Of course he has not done so through his "scientific research". Had he done so then he would not believe in intelligent design as it is no science, nor is creationism. Science doesn't lead you to God nor to any unscientific stuff. That archieved only by being "faithfull".
I guess we do have...
Still so many folks believing this hoax ? More than 20 years ago there started a media campaign using scientists to boast that science-quran claim. "numerous" scientists have been mailed by me and replied that the reports on certain "sites" are bogus fabrications and misrepresentations of their...
Of course it is. If it is no science then there is no validation through observaton, no model or framework that allows for predictions and testing. If there is no validation, verification, testing .... anything then it is worthless.
horrible waste of paper
I never understood that statement by Hawkins about time beginning with the big bang. As far as i understand it there is no single entity called time. As time is linked to each objects speed each object has its own time. There is also no reason to believe that there was no time before the big...