Just because something has never been shown to be false doesn't mean it's true.GOD was the only belief which has stood the test of time.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Originally posted by Fred Rosenberger:
Nobody has ever PROVED that Santa Clause does not exist. That does not mean that he does.
The distant, ice-covered world is no longer a true planet, according to a new definition of the term voted on by scientists today.
...
The tough decision comes after a multiyear search for a scientific definition of the word "planet." The term never had an official meaning before.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
Originally posted by Fred Rosenberger:
Just because something has never been shown to be false doesn't mean it's true.
Nobody has ever PROVED that Santa Clause does not exist. That does not mean that he does.
If you are not laughing at yourself, then you just didn't get the joke.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Believe in God, it will not harm you.
[ flickr ]
Originally posted by R K Singh:
Dont believe in God, it will also not harm you. But you will miss the positive energy you get by believing in God. (I am not getting rt wording to put my words)
Let it be fictious, but if you have faith then obviously you become optimistic and you get courage to face the worse scenarios of one life.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Any scientific and rational human being should be aware of the limitations of the senses and capability of the human being.
The fact that human beings have limited perception does not mean that there is something to be perceived.
Originally posted by Amit Biswas:
To deny something since we cannot percieve it, shows arrogance. It also shows that we have closed our minds and hearts to, at least, put an effort to explore the unknown to be able to percieve it.
To deny something since we cannot percieve it, shows arrogance. I
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Arun, do you feel that science takes something out of this beauty, or diminish it in some other way, or ... why?
Poets say science takes away from the beauty of the stars � mere globs of gas atoms. Nothing is "mere". I too can see the stars on a desert night, and feel them. But do I see less or more? The vastness of the heavens stretches my imagination � stuck on this carousel my little eye can catch one-million-year-old light. A vast pattern � of which I am a part... What is the pattern or the meaning or the why? It does not do harm to the mystery to know a little more about it. For far more marvelous is the truth than any artists of the past imagined it. Why do the poets of the present not speak of it? What men are poets who can speak of Jupiter if he were a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?
There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
This implies that our default position must be to accept God's existence unless any evidence comes along which disproves him. This kind of view would be totally unacceptable if applied to other entities or theories (should we just accept that Father Christmas exists unless we can disprove him?), so why should God be any different?Originally posted by Amit Biswas:
To defy the creator just because we have not devised a way to understand HIM is arrogance.
There will be glitches in my transition from being a saloon bar sage to a world statesman. - Tony Banks
When you can understand why you deny the existance of all the other gods of all the other religions, you will undertand why I deny the existance of yours.
If you think about it, we're both athiests. I just believe in one less god than you.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
[QB]AK: I always find so much beauty in this world that I cannot understand or accept science giving a reason to it.
Arun, do you feel that science takes something out of this beauty, or diminish it in some other way, or ... why?
The reason I say that is, think about a world just before science. I feel lot of things were in control. Of course, science has given us communication, healthcare etc., I don't deny it. But these scientific revolutions has destroyed nature, changed behaviours and attitude of people drastically. I feel there was so much beauty before, which science in a way had destroyed it. It has given us so much information and maturity which I hate. People are always on the run, they are inauthentic to their own self. In a way I like to be naked and immature. Of course nobody is stopping me, but I feel there are so many threads attached to me, that I cannot cut them from me, just like that. If Nature is God, science in a way had deprived us from engulfing GOD.
[ May 22, 2007: Message edited by: Arun Kumarr ]
If you are not laughing at yourself, then you just didn't get the joke.
Well, yes, in fact we DO know what's out there. We DO know what the planets look like and how far away they are. It's true there may be a few ignorant people who refuse to understand these things, but we don't have to wait for them before we can safely say we know things. Taking those ignorant people's views into account is the trap that we set for ourselves, that reporting and education has to take a "balanced" view of things. That leads us into comparing reasonable and sensible things with complete idiocy in the name of balance.Originally posted by stephen gates:
We accept that Space for what we think it is and assume it is. But do we really know what's out there? Do we really know what the planets look like? Do we really know how far certain things are?
I mean there are many people who claim the US never visited the Moon, it was a special effect stunt.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
In 200 BC, travelers told the head of the Alexandria Library, Eratosthenes, about a well near present-day Aswan. The bottom of the well was lit by the sun at noon during the summer solstice. At that moment the sun was straight overhead. Eratosthenes realized he could measure the shadow cast by a tower in Alexandria while no shadow was being cast in Aswan. Then, knowing the distance to Aswan, it'd be simple to calculate Earth's radius. (You geometry students, try that one.)
There was no accurate timekeeping back then. For Eratosthenes to make his observation, it had to be precisely noon in both cities. And he needed an accurate north-south distance from Alexandria to Aswan. Actually, Aswan lay south by southeast instead of due south, but the error wasn't great. His calculated size of Earth was high by only fifteen percent.
Three centuries later, the astronomer Ptolemy created many methods of modern geography. It was he who abandoned the idea that we're girdled by a great unsailable ocean. Ptolemy believed that other lands lay out in the terra incognita. He built upon Eratosthenes; but he also criticized him. When Ptolemy made his own estimate of size, he came out twenty-eight percent low.
Ptolemy's thinking suited Columbus, for it shrank Earth to fit his ships. He was plain dumb lucky that the West Indies intervened.
A good question is never answered. It is not a bolt to be tightened into place but a seed to be planted and to bear more seed toward the hope of greening the landscape of the idea. John Ciardi
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Well, yes, in fact we DO know what these other planets are made of. There are plenty of ways to know that which don't involve going there with a shovel. Sure, you can say it's all theories, but that's just the same as saying you're bound and determined to be ignorant and there's nothing anybody else can do about it.Originally posted by stephen gates:
Like I said... We have no evidence of what these other planets are really made of or are not made of.
But the disagreeing is the productive part. That's how you learn new things. Once you agree, there's nothing more to be learned. Disagreeing isn't a bad thing at all.Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I find it humorous that so many folks here agree that God doesn't exist yet disagree on how to agree.
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
Well, yes, in fact we DO know what these other planets are made of.
There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors
"I'm not back." - Bill Harding, Twister
No, there is a difference. Scientific theories can be tested. We can do experiments to see if they are correct, and we can look around to find evidence that proves they are false. And trying to disprove scientific theories is a mainstream part of science. There are plenty of scientific theories that have been disproved over the years. But remember that when a scientist says "theory" he doesn't mean "wild guess", which is how you try to trivialize the word. A "theory" is a set of rules, or a framework, that attempts to explain part of the world and how that part of the world operates. So we have spectroscopes that tell us what elements are in the Sun because of various people's theories about the structure of atoms and other things. We can test a spectroscope by trying it out with things on the Earth; we assume for now that things on Mars and the Sun behave in the same way. Once we get to Mars we can check that out, but I think that's going to be the case. And we can use one theory to test another theory; for example when people thought up the theory of quantum mechanics, it suddenly explained why the lines in the Sun's spectrum were where they were.Originally posted by stephen gates:
You have a "faith" in science. That is fine. Nothing wrong with that. But what is the difference between your "faith" in the science of things you can't see, touch or feel compared to somebody elses "faith" in religion or a god, which they can't see, touch or feel. There isn't any. You just preach science and complain about religious preaches.
I don't condemn people who believe in gods. I don't believe in any, but that's just how I am. I didn't decide to be that way, either. Perhaps I was born that way or perhaps I was brought up that way, I don't know. I'm sure that a large number of people who believe in gods do that because that's just how they are, and they didn't decide to be that way either. I don't think you should condemn people just because of what they are, and I try not to do that.Believe whatever you want to believe, but if you condemn people who believe in god cause it's all about "faith" well your "faith" in galaxies far far away are nothing but beliefs based on your "faith."
No, you're right. I haven't been drivelling meaninglessly enough. So yeah, I agree. On how to agree... I think...Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I was just trying to be funny guys.
Originally posted by Paul Clapham:
But remember that when a scientist says "theory" he doesn't mean "wild guess", which is how you try to trivialize the word.
"Thanks to Indian media who has over the period of time swiped out intellectual taste from mass Indian population." - Chetan Parekh
If you are not laughing at yourself, then you just didn't get the joke.
Originally posted by Arun Kumarr:
Consider this thought.
There is no such thing as GOD.
It's only a perception. GOD is nothing but a way to look at things and behaviours which are happening around us.
Can we have GOD as a personification of a certain kind of perception?
:roll:
Originally posted by Devesh H Rao:
A (Knowledge) = Science
A�(Things that are unknown) = God
"Let the one among you who has never sinned throw the first stone.." -A Hero
Does this tiny ad smell okay to you?
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards
https://gardener-gift.com
|