Did God Create Science?

Did God create Science?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 26.7%
  • No

    Votes: 10 66.7%
  • Maybe, what do i know...

    Votes: 1 6.7%
  • I don't want to think about it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

Another Klone that must be suffering from past spankings...

Try counseling, or some 12 step program for your nagging resentments...

Speaking of 12-step programs, are you recovering from your relapse into alcoholism last year?
 
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

has anyone else figured out who this guy's alternative alias is yet??? i have, either that or jesus shares a computer with another user of ET, i'll give you a hint, he's another well known, quasi controversial member who also digresses endlessly in his posts...

OMG... You aren't talking about Jack are you?...:eek:
 
Quote from Mom0/pH0x:

i don't know... AM I (hahaha) looks like this topic is banned and i appologize fore deviating from it... so, until it's appropriate we won't talk about ''you know who''
its not banned, i am just asking for courtesy. hopefully the thread's subject gives enough room for people to express views whatever these views might be. cheers
 
Jesus's philosophies were entirely gnostic, anti-church, and anti dogmatic.

Everything modern christians dont beleive in, strangely-thanks to a stupid book, that he did not write, which is fortunate.



Because if he had actual claim to the works in question, he would be widely regarded as THE worst author, the most CONFUSED philospher, the MOST incompetent narrator, the single WORST historian who ever lived, and a most unremarkable person, generally.
 
Quote from acronym:

Jesus's philosophies were entirely gnostic, anti-church, and anti dogmatic.

Everything modern christians dont beleive in, strangely-thanks to a stupid book, that he did not write, which is fortunate.



Because if he had actual claim to the works in question, he would be widely regarded as THE worst author, the most CONFUSED philospher, the MOST incompetent narrator, the single WORST historian who ever lived, and a most unremarkable person, generally.

Good effort. Not exactly gnostic , but "gnostic" is closer to the truth, however, than what was left of my message after it was repackaged and made into a popular book.

Google "gospel of truth" to find a better rendition. It was found alongside the gospel of Thomas in Nag Hammadi.

In every case, with the bible, with better gnostic viewpoints, with the not-gnostic bits and pieces provided by Thomas as he remembered my sayings...in every case, you must do your homework to decipher the authentic message as I spoke it. Even Thomas' efforts have been compromised by other "contributors".

You can do it because you have the truth in you.

This post shows you are able to see through the smokescreen.

Jesus
 
Oh, quotation marks are necessary for original thought. Gotta love those artificial boundaries.




Well , try this on for size;

Octave Chanute, from wiki.

"Let us hope that the advent of a successful flying machine, now only dimly foreseen and nevertheless thought to be possible, will bring nothing but good into the world; that it shall abridge distance, make all parts of the globe accessible, bring men into closer relation with each other, advance civilization, and hasten the promised era in which there shall be nothing but peace and goodwill among all men." Octave Chanute Progress in Flying Machines
 
Quote from 2cents:

dying to know is our lot... the saving grace is... there are so many ways to "die" ;-)


well, I'm halfway through my thousand deaths, so I know just what you mean ...

Ok, how about this... The origins of science and the scientific tradition can be traced back to men attempting to explain what they saw as a divine world ..


I think I might even be correct on that ..


So, man created science in the image of God ...
 
Quote from pattersb:

well, I'm halfway through my thousand deaths, so I know just what you mean ...

Ok, how about this... The origins of science and the scientific tradition can be traced back to men attempting to explain what they saw as a divine world ..


I think I might even be correct on that ..


So, man created science in the image of God ...
agree that those men and women (sorry to be so PC...) would have had to be stimulated, if not fascinated, by those phenomenons they attempted to explain, the world around them...

what they "created" however was a powerful reductionist approach for the main part... what do u think? its not so much that they "wanted" to create a reductionist approach only, attempts at more holistic approaches were and are still being made by the very same men and women (ok, their successors...), its just that most holistic attempts failed at providing any practical insights, while the reductionist approach worked wonders...

which is not to say that those men and women were not guided by a holistic vision of their own though...
 
Back
Top