![]() |
| Welcome to Religious Forums |
| Welcome Guest to ReligiousForums.com . You are currently not registered. When you become registered you will be able to interact with our large base of already registered users discussing topics. Some annoying Ads will also disappear when you register. Registering doesn't cost a thing and only takes a few seconds. We provide areas to chat and debate all World Religions. Please go to our register page! |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Back in my college days, he was fun. Now he bores me.
__________________
He was my father. And my mother... my brother... my friend. He was you... and me. He was all of us. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I used a non conventional defintion, but proof in the purest sense does not exist, therefore it is pointless to have a word regarding it. Quote:
Anyhow, an MRI will figure it out in no time. And sorry if I appeared huffy
__________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. ~Howard Aiken |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
That says more about you than about Escher. My comment stands.
__________________
if G-d ( G-d is not 'X' for all 'X' )
|
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Who is Escher?
Science proves things according to a specific understanding of proof. Science makes statements according to a specific understanding of reality and those statements should be regarded as such just in case that understanding is wrong. I think that this definition and understanding are reasonable but I don't wish to take them as given since to do so would be to ignore, and so undermine, their basis. It would be unreasonable to say that science is rubbish, useless, suspect, weak, untrustworthy e.t.c. just because it doesn't conform to a stricter standard of proof than this. It should only be called suspect when these important caveats are not taken into consideration. The sceptic should be called suspect when they are given more consideration than they deserve.
__________________
Last edited by Fluffy; 02-11-2008 at 06:27 PM. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
The proof is in the pudding.
__________________
...of course, I could be wrong. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
And I accept your comment. We're talking about the artist/mathematician, right?
__________________
He was my father. And my mother... my brother... my friend. He was you... and me. He was all of us. |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Awww....
But disagreeing is no fun. Quote:
Oh well.
__________________
Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats. ~Howard Aiken |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
If my doctor straightens out my bone, and I don't feel pain, it certainly is possible that it might not have been the bone, but who is going to be that unreasonable when they have been freed of their pain? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Everything in science is inference. It sees an effect, measures it, and infers something from it. Electromagnetism, for example: it's not seen except by what it does and from that scientists infer something and give it a name. Particle physics is another: scientists see effects in a cloud chamber and infer something is causing it. The Big Bang is inferred, as is the multiverse theory and God-as-a-concept.
__________________
“If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. For man has closed himself up, till he sees all things through the narrow chinks of his cavern.” WILLIAM BLAKE |
|
#20
|
||||
|