A True Scientist [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otrqzITuSqE]
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
Let´s make this clear.
To prove or disprove God´s existence is NOT a bussiness of Science.
What is a MUST TO DO task for science is to explicitely discard any intent of pathetical and dishonest use of Science as crutches for supernatural believes.
Wich shouldn´t be a problem for those who held those believes based in their personal faith.
To prove or disprove God´s existence is NOT a bussiness of Science.
What is a MUST TO DO task for science is to explicitely discard any intent of pathetical and dishonest use of Science as crutches for supernatural believes.
Wich shouldn´t be a problem for those who held those believes based in their personal faith.
1-25 of 31
Pherick · 41-45, M
@CharlieZ I actually wonder why these discussions come up at all. As you said, science isn't trying to prove or disprove god. If it was, we would have a hypothesis and we would be trying to prove or disprove it, which seemingly could be done quite easily.
If you believe in god, awesome, your faith is your business. My only problem is when people with faith somehow believe that is a substitute for reason and science.
If you believe in god, awesome, your faith is your business. My only problem is when people with faith somehow believe that is a substitute for reason and science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Pherick If they believe "it´s a substitute" and the validity of such believe is a believe on itself, it´s none of my bussines and I can respect that.
Trouble comes when someone invoques Science to support unscientific assertions and demmand others to subordinate to this.
Science, by it´s own nature, never had Inquisition.
Never tolerate religious fundamentalists to hold political power or freedom will be at serious risk.
Trouble comes when someone invoques Science to support unscientific assertions and demmand others to subordinate to this.
Science, by it´s own nature, never had Inquisition.
Never tolerate religious fundamentalists to hold political power or freedom will be at serious risk.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
This is absolutely pathetic statement made by anti-religious fundamentalist atheist types. The problem is you do not realise that you are the fundamentalists who believe or disbelieve things on the on grounds of no logic whatsoever. I don't know whether you actually listen to what John Lennox had to say but you make no attempt to answer him and then come out with these puerile statements. @CharlieZ
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Speedyman Amen to that!
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman I did listen to Lennox. And disagree with him.
Not because I am fundamentalist not even anti-religious. Wich I am not. I´m not atheist, by the way.
But because those who assert that ANY religión have a scientific basis know less science than they should know.
Why to intent to refute Lennox?
It would be as usefull to refute the medioeval calculus about how much angels can dance over a needle.
About logic, I am a mathematician, with orientation TO logic, sets, and other branches of discrete math.
Are you?
If you are, you need a profesional update.
Rethorical only logic is not a serious one.
Left it for ancient sophists and later scholastics.
On being pathetic, said by you, I´ll take it as a compliment.
What would make me question my takes would be your agreement, sir.
Not because I am fundamentalist not even anti-religious. Wich I am not. I´m not atheist, by the way.
But because those who assert that ANY religión have a scientific basis know less science than they should know.
Why to intent to refute Lennox?
It would be as usefull to refute the medioeval calculus about how much angels can dance over a needle.
About logic, I am a mathematician, with orientation TO logic, sets, and other branches of discrete math.
Are you?
If you are, you need a profesional update.
Rethorical only logic is not a serious one.
Left it for ancient sophists and later scholastics.
On being pathetic, said by you, I´ll take it as a compliment.
What would make me question my takes would be your agreement, sir.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Yes I am a mathenatician. You of course ignore the background of great scientists of the past like Newton and Maxwell who considered their belief in God to be the foundation of their science in that they believed in a logical, created universe, which is the point Lennox is also making. The point you make proves you do not understand anything really about what the question realky is@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman I know enough of history and philosophy of Science as for researching and having published papers about on indexed scientific publications.
As for Newton, Maxwell and also Francis Bacon and Christian De Duve, I know about their faiths.
What you obviously deny is that Science is never about individual believes and if there is something that is alien to Science is any criteria of authority, not even related to great scientists.
And THAT last one lack of recongnition of a core aspect of science nature is a big big hollow.
As for Newton, Maxwell and also Francis Bacon and Christian De Duve, I know about their faiths.
What you obviously deny is that Science is never about individual believes and if there is something that is alien to Science is any criteria of authority, not even related to great scientists.
And THAT last one lack of recongnition of a core aspect of science nature is a big big hollow.
1-25 of 31