|
Is science based in fact or belief? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:28:58 |
|
Science is based on belief supported by fact. | by hadji | 2007-01-22 16:35:24 |
|
but could it be the reason it's faith-based | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:36:58 |
|
Can't ever get there. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:41:07 |
|
Why can't we ever get there? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:44:37 |
|
Because you can always say | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:50:05 |
|
Not yet, I agree | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 16:53:07 |
|
Not ever. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 16:59:59 |
|
That's the catch. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:04:23 |
|
But we know exactly how we'd go about that. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:06:15 |
|
Only because we've *done* it. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:10:03 |
|
We haven't landed probes on jupiter's moons | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:16:25 |
|
Yes. But we don't know how to get them back | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:29:46 |
| Yes we do |
by Arachnid |
2007-01-22 17:36:46 |
We know exactly how to go about it. We're not just sitting here scratching our heads thinking about magic - we just don't have sufficient fuel densities, or light enough building materials, or durable enough construction techniques. We know exactly what'll be needed to _make_ it possible.
The first folk who 'believed in germs' generally believed in 'humors' and other such nonsense, like the concept that illness was transmitted by smell. The discovery of bacteria and virii proved them _wrong_, not right. All they really had right is that there was some sort of external agent that caused people to get sick, for which they had plenty of evidence.
If the hypothetical God is truly omnipotent (and if not, in what sense is he/she/it God), then it is well within his purview to modify the result of any experiments. If he couldn't do that, he wouldn't be god. Therefore, regardless of if this hypothetical being would actually want to do that or not, they _can_ be modified, and therefore any attempt at a disproof will be rebuffed with "god wanted you to think that". |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
Are we omnipotent? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:53:51 |
|
No, we're not. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 17:57:05 |
|
Hence my point. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:58:36 |
|
So you can disprove small gods. Woohoo. | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:04:10 |
|
How do we know Gods go beyond science? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:08:43 |
|
And now you're not talking about proving the | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:15:01 |
|
Who says they WEREN'T what we call God? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:34:33 |
|
Definitions again. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:41:25 |
|
Neither. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:45:54 |
|
Glad I could help. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:49:47 |
|
Go right ahead :) | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:55:43 |
|
You can NEVER prove they don't! | by vetitice | 2007-01-22 18:18:46 |
|
That's because you think I'm trying to actively | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:38:32 |
|
No, it's useless to go searching... | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:43:02 |
|
The whole tangent thing again. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:48:44 |
|
Like I said, if it's not omnipotent, it's not god. | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:04:22 |
|
Why not? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:10:57 |
|
Then we have a disagreement in terminology | by Arachnid | 2007-01-22 18:16:35 |
|
That's fair enough. | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 18:42:13 |
