Superstition, Luck and Vodoo

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by daniel_m


I was beginning to think this chick had little clue about anything. After some digging, I turned this up - which proves it.

If the nature of god is uknowable, then how do you know about him??
More...



LOL

arrogance oft reveals itself as foolishness.

how can you assume God's nature unknowable unless he has revealed this to you, thus making his nature known....

p.s. those who are colorblind might not believe in rainbows. But those who can see color have all the proof they need. I think this analogy helps illustrate her rather insightful and intelligent point.
 
It's past ''11:11''[Commisso quote],CST.That is pretty late in the mourning unless you've got a nice profit on a daytrade.Logical on 30 minute charts.
________________________________

Interesting,darkhorse is thinking like Einstein.

Einstein quote-''Science without religion[redemption] is lame;religion[redemption] without science is blind'':cool:
 
Originally posted by murray t turtle
It's past ''11:11''[Commisso quote],CST.That is pretty late in the mourning unless you've got a nice profit on a daytrade.Logical on 30 minute charts.
________________________________

Interesting,darkhorse is thinking like Einstein.

Einstein quote-''Science without religion[redemption] is lame;religion[redemption] without science is blind'':cool:
More...
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
 
Originally posted by murray t turtle


Einstein quote-''Science without religion[redemption] is lame;religion[redemption] without science is blind'':cool:
More...


I definitely agree w/ Einstein on that one- no matter how hard some try to separate them, faith and reason are inseparably intertwined
 
science and religion (spiritual part of it least) try to approach and understand what's out there.

The first "science" accepts what can be proven and understood with our limited perceptions and empirical input, and excludes what has not been perceived yet.

The second "religion" complements the first, by accepting the notions of existence(s) beyond the now acceptable proofs from science. What else is out there.? Just because it's not proven yet, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist.

Eventually both may converge to the same levels awareness.

It can be very difficult at times, to describe what something is, without understanding what that something is not

Josh
 
Originally posted by Josh_B
science and religion (spiritual part of it least) try to approach and understand what's out there.

The first "science" accepts what can be proven and understood with our limited perceptions and empirical input, and excludes what has not been perceived yet.

The second "religion" complements the first, by accepting the notions of existence(s) beyond the now acceptable proofs from science. What else is out there.? Just because it's not proven yet, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist.

Eventually both may converge to the same levels awareness.

It can be very difficult at times, to describe what something is, without understanding what that something is not

Josh
More...

BS!!! Religion DOES NOT try to understand "what is out there".

Religion, in fact works completely opposite to science.
Whereas the scientist observes nature, postulates a hypothesis that attempts to explain the observations and tests the hypothesis to see if it holds up, and if it does, he has a scientific theory - which is at all times open to criticism and contrary evidence.

Religion, on the other hand, makes up its mind about reality first, and THEN goes and attempts to find "proof" of its claims. And if it can't (as it hasn't been able to), NEVERMIND, it is the REVEALED WORD. Believe or go to hell.
 
Originally posted by darkhorse




LOL



how can you assume God's nature unknowable unless he has revealed this to you, thus making his nature known....
More...

if God's nature is knowable then define it for me. i am yet to hear a standard definition of what a god or God (judeo-christian) is.
 
One of the flaws in this thread IMHO
is the assumption of linear, forward moving time.

we assume that this is he case, because that is what
we "experience" normally.

But what if it is different than that,
what if the bizzare conclusions of quantum physics have a personal connotation?

What if the future could communicate with the past and inform it in it's "forward development"?

One of my favorite ideas comes from one of my favorite books,
"God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies

It is the idea of retro-causation put forth by physicist John Wheeler.

In an ultimate sense, it is the idea that
Conciousness itself reaches back through time and creates the initial conditions that will (eventually) lead back to ITSELF.

Its a "weird" loop through time.

I believe that it is more personal than that.
that we are being "taught" BY the future to BECOME the future.

I know that this sounds incredibly GOOFY.

But I offer it as an alternative to the "2 dimentional hopeless banter" of this thread and all other "religion vs. science"
discussions.

Platypus
 
Originally posted by darkhorse






p.s. those who are colorblind might not believe in rainbows. But those who can see color have all the proof they need. I think this analogy helps illustrate her rather insightful and intelligent point.
More...
Here's a question that may be apropos to your analogy.

Many religions are evangelical in their nature. Some perhaps more than others, yet still their mission is to spread their Word. Some do it in peace, some not. Some try and accept their failures some destroy the non-believers. Tolerance and intolerance.

Well if one is colorblind, then how can they ever possibly be able to "believe in rainbows"? Better still; if I were blind from birth, then tell me how you would describe the color GREEN (or any other color). What context could you possibly use? Do you think there are words to make me comprehend what you are telling me? Or must I have (literally) Blind Faith? (or be an infidel)?
Am I wrong to not understand what a color is? Even the concept of what colors are?

My point here is not to question anyone's beliefs or lack thereof. Just to try and point out that the argument is not resolvable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top