|
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 |
|
Are we omnipotent? | by subbywan | 2007-01-22 17:53:51 |
| No, we're not. |
by Arachnid |
2007-01-22 17:57:05 |
| Omnipotence is the ability to do anything conceivable. We don't have that, and I doubt we ever will. Seeming omnipotent doesn't make you omnipotent. If you define a God as being something less than omnipotent, then in what sense is it a god, and not just an advanced creature of some sort? If you want to posit that there is no God, and instead just a race of highly advanced, interfering aliens, then sure, that can be disproven, provided we can reach a level of technology where we can detect their interference. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |