Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
To paraphrase kikergarrd. "The mystery is not something to be explained but to be experienced"
But you have to believe and have faith so atheists may have a problem.
no one pays attention to Douglas Adams he has already answered the vast majority of questions raised on RF. And to be honest its not the answers that are important but the quest!!!
I completely agree. In physics, when the model and reality differ, reality wins.
THAT IS A FACT AND THAT IS A PROBLEM!!!!! although both seem to have an extreme Fetish of understanding nature as a car!!!! Its wierd but hey its guys thats how we are.. I mean was she designed,? Created? Self organized by random accidental chance as dictated by and determined by a set of laws imposed upon her like some slave? Confusion abounds everywhere.
I use what's called the 'correspondence' definition of truth ─ a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects (objective) reality.
What on earth has atheism to do with raping children to death? Are you claiming that belief in God is a necessary condition precedent to moral behavior? That's simply untrue.
For want of any credible alternative, perhaps?
We can discuss that further when you define 'truth' for me. In my view an objective test for truth is essential. Otherwise we just wallow around like theologians, saying whatever we like.
I base my views on three assumptions ─ I have to assume them because they can't be shown to be correct without first assuming they are indeed correct. The first is that a world exists external to the self. The second is that our senses are capable of informing us about that world. The third is that reason is a valid tool. You post on the net so you agree with the first two. I trust you also agree with the third.
Bully for radical positivism, then.
You think science is ignorant of the nature of induction, and its problems? Science proceeds by empiricism and induction, so nothing protects its conclusions from a new and contradictory datum that we may find tomorrow, or never find. As Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified. This is one reason why experiments must be repeatable and conclusions must be expressed in falsifiable terms.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems apply to formal axiomatic systems in maths. The universe is not a formal axiomatic system. The mathematical models which physics makes for various physical relationships are simply models. If reality disagrees, reality wins.
Oh those Presbyterians! Who said the universe was created out of nothing? My own view is that it was created out of, and consists of, mass-energy and all its phenomena reflect qualities of mass-energy. (My view wouldn't be significantly affected if it were shown that the contents of the Big Bang were a salad rather than simply mass-energy.) I suspect time and space exist because energy exists, not vice versa, and if that be correct, there's no problem.
To point out that the universe is not an axiomatic system of maths, and hence is unaffected by Gödel's conclusions.
You don't like being a biomachine? My own view is that it sure beats the alternative.
Its certainly a way of seeing. It lacks originality, its certainly hard core orthodoxy and simplistic at best!! Its the "flavor of the day" !!!
