scientist who believes in God

deadnothingbetter

catefrances wrote:

if you are a believer, God's wrath is a bitch......i know what God's wrath means to believers

well it doesn't mean a bitch to me. God's wrath is justifiable. it's a holy wrath. His wrath is against the evil that has done harm to humanity. i mean, if you were to see the kind of evil that truly scared the crap out of you then you will understand God's wrath. cause his wrath is there to bring justice. but since you don't believe in the Bible it's kinda hard to explain.

Ahnimus

How does the will determine it's self?

Oh right, that stuff isn't addressed in the bible.

catefrances

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well it doesn't mean a bitch to me. God's wrath is justifiable. it's a holy wrath. His wrath is against the evil that has done harm to humanity. i mean, if you were to see the kind of evil that truly scared the crap out of you then you will understand God's wrath. cause his wrath is there to bring justice. but since you don't believe in the Bible it's kinda hard to explain.

why does God allow such evil in the first place? does he allow it to manifest itself in order to see what the remainder of humanity do in reaction. is that the true measure of Man?

if it's so hard to explain, how am i ever going to understand where you're coming from. and thus how am i ever going to have the chance of being bought into the fold? or is it that i have to want to believe before i can understand God's wrath?

deadnothingbetter

catefrances wrote:

why does God allow such evil in the first place? does he allow it to manifest itself in order to see what the remainder of humanity do in reaction. is that the true measure of Man?

if it's so hard to explain, how am i ever going to understand where you're coming from. and thus how am i ever going to have the chance of being bought into the fold? or is it that i have to want to believe before i can understand God's wrath?

no, i'm just basing it on the idea that my beliefs would seem merely pathetic and boring to you. it's all. but i would think you need to have an open mind. i think?

as for evil being in this world... it entered through our believing in the devil. that's how it entered. it's not that God didn't allow it. he's not dictating anything in this life. it entered because we allowed it to enter our minds through a belief in a lie.

catefrances

deadnothingbetter wrote:

no, i'm just basing it on the idea that my beliefs would seem merely pathetic and boring to you. it's all. but i would think you need to have an open mind. i think?

as for evil being in this world... it entered through our believing in the devil. that's how it entered. it's not that God didn't allow it. he's not dictating anything in this life. it entered because we allowed it to enter our minds through a belief in a lie.

see that wasn't so difficult was it. thank you. i did know that already, but to me it just brings up more questions.

and i do not find anyone's beliefs boring and far from pathetic. please do not make a judgement on me based on presumption. i am fascinated by it all. i do read the bible you know. a fact i share with the jehovah's witnesses that come to my door every now again trying to show me the light. they look at me with disbelief wondering how this is possible and yet remain an atheist.

deadnothingbetter

catefrances wrote:

see that wasn't so difficult was it. thank you. i did know that already, but to me it just brings up more questions.

and i do not find anyone's beliefs boring and far from pathetic. please do not make a judgement on me based on presumption. i am fascinated by it all. i do read the bible you know. a fact i share with the jehovah's witnesses that come to my door every now again trying to show me the light. they look at me with disbelief wondering how this is possible and yet remain an atheist.

i had a jehovah witness friend. our ideas are so contrary to each other. primarily because their book is different from what i read. so we always had very opposing views. i will never make presumptions of you again. so i'll remember your name in order to avoid that

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Again, science is the best method for discrimination.

Science is one of the better methods we have, yes. But although it can give us good knowledge on many subjects, it's scope is by definition limited by it's own premises. So there are a lot of room outside what we can scientifically know.

That is my only point really. Science is a good source of knowledge, perhaps the best, but also flawed and limited.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Science is one of the better methods we have, yes. But although it can give us good knowledge on many subjects, it's scope is by definition limited by it's own premises. So there are a lot of room outside what we can scientifically know.

That is my only point really. Science is a good source of knowledge, perhaps the best, but also flawed and limited.

Peace
Dan

My point is nothing else is any less flawed.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

My point is nothing else is any less flawed.

Wouldn't disagree to that.
But other methods are flawed in other ways, making an effort to combine methods and approaches important.

Peace
Dan

ClimberInOz

catefrances wrote:

nik tesla or not, i don't blow dry my hair.

Random Fact of The Day: Nikola Tesla suffered from colombophillia- he fell in love with pigeons.

Ahnimus

ClimberInOz wrote:

Random Fact of The Day: Nikola Tesla suffered from colombophillia- he fell in love with pigeons.

He invented A/C current and wireless. He was an amazing physicist.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Wouldn't disagree to that.
But other methods are flawed in other ways, making an effort to combine methods and approaches important.

Peace
Dan

Flawed in the worst way, it's opposed to reason.

"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire

ClimberInOz

Ahnimus wrote:

He invented A/C current and wireless. He was an amazing physicist.

He certainly was, and a very interesting person as well. He was also pathophobic (fear of pathogens), yet would share his house with pigeons, even going so far to say that he loved one particular pigeon as a 'man loves a woman'. Eccentricity often goes hand in hand with brilliance.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Flawed in the worst way, it's opposed to reason.

"Everything happens through immutable laws, ...everything is necessary... There are, some persons say, some events which are necessary and others which are not. It would be very comic that one part of the world was arranged, and the other were not; that one part of what happens had to happen and that another part of what happens did not have to happen. If one looks closely at it, one sees that the doctrine contrary to that of destiny is absurd; but there are many people destined to reason badly; others not to reason at all others to persecute those who reason." - Voltaire

How so? Other methods don't have to be opposed to reason. Science does not equal reason. Is it unreasonable to believe an eye-witness account, for instance? Science is a particular method demanding lab-reproducability of phenomena. Reason is more than that.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

How so? Other methods don't have to be opposed to reason. Science does not equal reason. Is it unreasonable to believe an eye-witness account, for instance? Science is a particular method demanding lab-reproducability of phenomena. Reason is more than that.

Peace
Dan

There are reasons to disregard personal experience. It's subjective. Mental disorders. Pareidolia, psychosis, etc..

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

There are reasons to disregard personal experience. It's subjective. Mental disorders. Pareidolia, psychosis, etc..

You consistently trust subjective experiences by people called scientists, don't you? An experience experienced by a human being is by definition subjective, as it happens to a subject. A scientist reports what he sees, hears, smells aka his experience to a wider audience. For us to be able to know a scientific fact, one scientist must have experienced it and related it to the rest of us. It is corroborated if other subjects (scientists) report the same phenomena.

You seem to outline criterias for not trusting certain people's accounts of experiences, and that is completely in line with what I have been sketching as the system of discrimination and variable trust of sources. The main reason we believe science, is because we generally rate it higher on our "trust-meter" than some-random-guy-in-Iowa.

Given this nature of knowledge, then it becomes less clear why one shouldn't trust experiences that are reported from many sources and are similar in nature. Besides our confidence in science, that is.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

You consistently trust subjective experiences by people called scientists, don't you? An experience experienced by a human being is by definition subjective, as it happens to a subject. A scientist reports what he sees, hears, smells aka his experience to a wider audience. For us to be able to know a scientific fact, one scientist must have experienced it and related it to the rest of us. It is corroborated if other subjects (scientists) report the same phenomena.

You seem to outline criterias for not trusting certain people's accounts of experiences, and that is completely in line with what I have been sketching as the system of discrimination and variable trust of sources. The main reason we believe science, is because we generally rate it higher on our "trust-meter" than some-random-guy-in-Iowa.

Given this nature of knowledge, then it becomes less clear why one shouldn't trust experiences that are reported from many sources and are similar in nature. Besides our confidence in science, that is.

Peace
Dan

The scientific method is flawless over time. By comparison to anything else. Philosophical thought that gave rise to all these mystic interpretations of human experience has evolved for thousands of years. Science has only a few hundred and has already transformed our lives. Nothing stacks up to science, not even close. It works because the universe is deterministic.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

It works because the universe is deterministic.

Sounds philosophical, to me.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

The scientific method is flawless over time. By comparison to anything else. Philosophical thought that gave rise to all these mystic interpretations of human experience has evolved for thousands of years. Science has only a few hundred and has already transformed our lives. Nothing stacks up to science, not even close. It works because the universe is deterministic.

Well, it's good to hear your ideology is working for you. But nothing in that statement is anything beyond ideology, opinion and interpretation. I dont share your optimism, nor the complete faith in science, nor the complete disregard of everything outside the realm of science.

I could start with my entire science criticism over again, but that is really not what this is about here and now (mind you, criticism of science is not the same as wanting to abolish or remove science and opt for theocracy). You are, however, completely dodging my point about everything being based on subjective accounts, also science. Your reply wasn't a reply at all, just a yelled slogan in support of science.

Peace
Dan

gue_barium

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, it's good to hear your ideology is working for you. But nothing in that statement is anything beyond ideology, opinion and interpretation. I dont share your optimism, nor the complete faith in science, nor the complete disregard of everything outside the realm of science.

I could start with my entire science criticism over again, but that is really not what this is about here and now (mind you, criticism of science is not the same as wanting to abolish or remove science and opt for theocracy). You are, however, completely dodging my point about everything being based on subjective accounts, also science. Your reply wasn't a reply at all, just a yelled slogan in support of science.

Peace
Dan

Well, there is the science of theocracy, the science of philosophy, the science of ...