KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
Yeah. still, bigotry is bigotry. Maybe you dont know the concept of bigotry. So defend it and show your colours.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah. still, bigotry is bigotry. Maybe you dont know the concept of bigotry. So defend it and show your colours.
"Science" is not a thing, or a list of facts. It is a process.Yeah, and what makes you believe it is now correct?
Wow. Did you really just write that without any sense of irony?I suggest that it's not my thinking that's hidebound by dogma, it's yours.
I don't need to recruit physics, or logic, or reason to prove to my head what my heart believes with absolute conviction.
Your claim is just question begging or rhetorical slight of hand.If the models whereby the universe began, and probably ends, with a singularity are correct, then there certainly was a moment of creation. What else was the Big Bang, if not that?
As you haven't defined what "a new loving humanity" is, we cannot make any predictions in relation to it.No it is not disrespectful, because it is actually the Messengers of God that offer that exact challenge. It is impossible to produce words that will create a new loving humanity that are not given from God.
This is just more meaningless spiritual platitudes. You are not actually saying anything that provides any information.This is what the Word of God Acheives
"The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked. No sooner had but a glimmer of its effulgent splendour shone forth upon the mirror of love than the blessed word 'I am the Best-Beloved' was reflected therein. It is an ocean inexhaustible in riches, comprehending all things. Every thing which can be perceived is but an emanation therefrom."
Just clarifying your position on mining Hawking quotes as an appeal to authority.It’s certainly rhetoric, though perhaps not entirely hollow; Hawking made the point that theoretical science in certain areas had become so esoteric, and the calculus used to support it so complex, that only a handful of specialists were able to follow it in detail. It wasn’t just that four dimensional Euclidean space time, imaginary numbers and imaginary time are difficult concepts to get your head round: Certain concepts like Feynman’s ‘sum over histories’ theory requires calculating probabilities for every possible wave function at any given vector, and involves the concept that a particle has not one history but the history of every possible path in space time.
So Hawking had a point; theoretical physicists had to turn to the most gifted mathematicians to help with that sort of calculus. But no, I certainly wouldn’t have agreed with his rhetorical statement that philosophy was ever dead. Nor would the physicists who have turned to philosophers - Rovelli referencing Nagarjuna being a good recent example - to help them explain and conceptualise increasingly arcane Quantum ideas.
But pretty much everyone who claims the supernatural exists also claims that operates in and affects this physical, natural world. Therefore there should be some means by which it can be detected.The obvious response is, it shouldn’t. Science is the study of the material world, is it not?
So given the matters I mentioned, how do you say science should respond to supernatural claims?
It does. It examines the evidence and arguments presented for those claims. Thus far, supernatural claims do not present any actual evidence or rational argument. So science has dismissed them.Science does not.
Just clarifying your position on mining Hawking quotes as an appeal to authority.
So it isn't Hawking's intellect that you are appealing to, only things he says that might, sort of seem to support your existing position.
Fair enough.
It may not have been intentional, but it was what you did. And you did act for quite a while as if that quote supported you. Those that defend evolution and other sciences are used to this dishonest technique. so of course he jumped all over you. If it was an accident the best move is simply to acknowledge your error and move on. When people admit that they screwed up others will almost always forgive them.I wasn’t mining for quotes, I came across a quote in A Brief History of Time which resonated with a point being made by another poster on this forum, so I thought I’d respond with Hawking’s words; he could be rather eloquent, which by no means all scientists are.
I wasn’t trying to support a position, so much as illustrate an observation. Then you jumped all over it like a bloodhound dismembering a fox, and completely missed the point; which, if I remember rightly, was the statistical improbability of the universe expanding in precisely the manner necessary for our corner of it to support intelligent life. That probability being so fantastically slight as to be almost worth discarding; if you’d read the whole quote without your blinkers on, you’d have noticed the reference to the anthropic principle and picked up on that, but you didn’t - you ran straight to Google, exactly as I said you would.
I don't need to recruit physics, or logic, or reason to prove to my head what my heart believes with absolute conviction.
Nor do I have any interest in proving it to you.
If the models whereby the universe began, and probably ends, with a singularity are correct, then there certainly was a moment of creation.
What else was the Big Bang, if not that?
What I am not willing to do, is listen to the carefully rehearsed rhetoric of inflexible fundamentalists, whether that fundamentalist be atheist or religious.
I don't need to recruit physics, or logic, or reason to prove to my head what my heart believes with absolute conviction.
I know, you have to wonder how many times it has to be explained to anyone that their clumsy unevidenced addition of the word creation, is a begging the question fallacy.Wow. Did you really just write that without any sense of irony?
Your claim is just question begging or rhetorical slight of hand.
Creation requires a creator. There is no evidence for a creator therefore it is wrong to claim that the universe was created.
"A moment of formation" accurately describes the event without shoehorning in the unnecessary idea of god.
If it supplies no data, then as you say, it is a) indistinguishable from the non-existent and b) demonstrably is not affecting the material physical universe, or there would be data to study as evidence, instead all we ever get is anecdotal unevidenced claims, argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies and argumentum ad populum fallacies.But pretty much everyone who claims the supernatural exists also claims that operates in and affects this physical, natural world. Therefore there should be some means by which it can be detected.
If it is indeed entirely separate from and undetectable by this universe, then it its indistinguishable from "nothing".
Newsflash then, human beings were not created instantly in their current form by a deity using magic. They evolved roughly 200k years ago, (as have all living things) which makes humans a very young species in evolutionary terms. The implication being obvious for the religious idea that everything was created with us in mind.
...No human method can ever be completely infallible, quite obviously, but that is also true for religious claims, which rather contradicts the idea the claims and message are from an omniscient deity.
...but if you accept gravity then you cannot reject evolution without being more than a bit of a hypocrite...
...
If so it is easy to show some of the flaws of the Bible.
"Science" is not a thing, or a list of facts. It is a process.
Things that have been determined by science are often demonstrably correct.
Do you think the phone/computer you are using now was developed and built by guesswork?Do you believe it operates by magic?
As Richard Dawkins said...
It may not have been intentional, but it was what you did. And you did act for quite a while as if that quote supported you. Those that defend evolution and other sciences are used to this dishonest technique. so of course he jumped all over you. If it was an accident the best move is simply to acknowledge your error and move on. When people admit that they screwed up others will almost always forgive them.
Why? The theory of evolution can't be proven correct with scientific method.
Your god needs to try much harder if he wants to be taken seriously by rational people.