Re: God Vs Science

Posted by Pasti on Mar 13, 2004 at 21:49

Re: God Vs Science (Kathy)

"To much of science, it makes more sense that a quantum singularity just appeared that spun our Universe into existence..."

Just to keep record straight, it is a classical singularity, not a quantum one.Unless you did some groundbreaking work in quantum gravity, in which case I am eager to read your paper.

"...(against all odds, as they know them) - rather than having The Thought, then put it into Action, by an intelligent being. That constitutes invention, at least."

Again, fallacy by inaccurate assumption.It is against all the odds as YOU know them.

And you are "right" again.Instead of being impartial to the evidence nature offers, wherever that might lead, why not introduce mystical concepts, and adjust them freely such that everything is explained?Especially since such mystical arguments "along with all the odds as we know them".
Good one Kathy.

"After all, not the brightest and learned can yet build a perpetual motion machine, yet see THIS one was happenchance, and their writing down observations and tampering, as genius.”

Well, you are not even amongst the learned yet. A perpetual motion machine cannot be built. As much for the rest of the phrase, You are the only one who knows what you intended to say.

They prefer nuclear, fossil fuels, mutations on all levels and dumping garbage in all the wrong places, but prefer you not see the egg on their faces."

If we are talking about eggs in the face, how about you jog your very selective memory and remember all the massacres done in the name of religion during the centuries? It wasn’t science that invented the burning at the stake, and I am sure Giordano Bruno might have something to say about the bliss of religion.

And as much as “…they prefer nuclear, fossil fuels, mutations on all levels and dumping garbage in all the wrong places, but prefer you not see the egg on their faces…”, last time I heard, this was not done exclusively by scientists, it was done by the people, some of them counting themselves among the “pious” ones. You are indeed a hypocrite.

“They would also scour space in search of life, believing in that "unknown". They also suffer the belief they can found/settle someplace more habitable than Planet Earth, after destroying it's balance (rather than fully addressing it).”

As opposed to believing in …what “known”? Stories in a book, hardly yet having historical truth, let alone being the truth?
No one forces you to take part in the search of the “unknown” as you call it. You can stay home and pray…
As for destroying the balance on Earth, correct me if I am wrong, but that has not been done by science. It has been done by all those (believers and non-believers) that learned their moral values from the front of the dollar bills…

“To plan a space mission they still use rockets, slide rules and technology that's been around for 30+ years, and to make a trip, they have to dodge the junk they've left strewn up there. Again, they don't believe in God, but maybe Nature, to clean up their messes. And it will, once nature removes the source, or the source reduces the carnage.”

So let me see if I got it right: You believe in God to clean up your mess? That’s what it’s all about for you? Having a clear conscience by living with the delusion that no matter what you do wrong, a mythical figure will ultimately forgive you? Oh boy…

“Not logical, but then not all science is, nor do all those so learned exclude the ultimate Creator.”

Kathy, you don’t know what logic is. Nor how to apply it. And rational thinking still has its mysteries for you. But you make full-mouthedly statements of the type above, without being able to support/prove them. I understand that in your mind/world this procedure might be common, but in scientific terms, it has absolutely no value.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]