[QUOTE="Harkat95"]This is true. However, until a claim is proven to be true, considering them as true is pointless. That works in reverse as we'll. Until something is proven true it's not illogical to believe nonetheless. We haven't "proven" evolution or global warming but it doesn't mean it's wrong to believe they're correct. There are also a ton of evidence pointing to evolution and global warming.being wrong but the How convenient! A post that stops just as I'm about to stop reading, thus doing my work for me.[QUOTE="Chickity_China"] Yet we practically know nothing of our universe how can our primitive scientific knowledge accurately begin to contemplate something so complicated as an omnipotent being that exists outside of time and our contingent universe. It'll be a long while before we can levitimately tackle.the question of religion from a.scientific perspective. Pardon the typos im on my phone.
Chickity_China
dromiceiomimus' forum posts
It's almost as if historically, religions have been the products of misogynist patriarchies! Oh wait yeah they have.Why do people even give their god a sex? What is it with all this stupid labeling of"He, him, his, father" etc?
Are men that much more dominant than women that even 'god' decided to be a man to exemplify manliness?
_R34LiTY_
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]
[QUOTE="Chickity_China"]Yet we practically know nothing of our universe how can our primitive scientific knowledge accurately begin to contemplate something so complicated as an omnipotent being that exists outside of time and our contingent universe. It'll be a long while before we can levitimately tackle.the question of religion from a.scientific perspective. Pardon the typos im on my phone.
Chickity_China
An omnipotent being is a contradiction and violates the laws of the universe. And science can easily approach religion... it just needs to stop relying so heavily on external, empirical observations. There is a lot about the brain we need to understand before we can tackle more complicated scientific matters. What u don't understand is that an omnipotent being that is noncontingent exists outside of our physical universe and is therefore not bound by any laws. The contradiction u infer is that an omnipotent being is subject to any physical laws. That goes against the very definition of omnipotence.>implying that logical laws are a subset of physical laws
lol.
If we're totally wrong about the universe, I wonder how it is that computers work; how it is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons work; how all those innovations based on scientific knowledge don't just fail to work at all.When did the topic change to man made inventions?It didn't; I'm using successful man-made inventions based on scientific knowledge as evidence that our scientific knowledge must be fairly accurate. Do try to keep up.[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Well as far as we KNOW. We could be totally wrong....we could be totally right. We could be somewhere in the middle. Humans are bound by what they can perceive. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="dromiceiomimus"]Which is rather well. Well as far as we KNOW. We could be totally wrong....we could be totally right. We could be somewhere in the middle. Humans are bound by what they can perceive. That doesn't mean there isn't more out there.If we're totally wrong about the universe, I wonder how it is that computers work; how it is that nuclear power and nuclear weapons work; how all those innovations based on scientific knowledge don't just fail to work at all.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
The laws of the universe are only as we understand them however.....
LJS9502_basic
Which is rather well.The laws of the universe are only as we understand them however.....
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="Harkat95"]There is actually a quite accurate way of deciding the probability of wether or not something is demonstrably true, and it's called the scientific method: When a claim has a lot of evidence supporting it, we deem that the probability of said claim being true is high. If not, we don't.
foxhound_fox
What about hallucinations? The scientific method is meaningless when the detection organs aren't functioning properly. That's my point, you can't just rely on the objective observations to determine "truth" because all we do is take those objective observations and colour them with our subjective perceptions. So, to a lot of people, their subjective beliefs are "demonstrably" true, because it fits into their subjective perceptions.As regards hallucinations, I would be moved to suggest that the sufferer should perhaps submit their observations for peer review and see if the scientific method truly has nothing to say.
Log in to comment