 |
|
gunkulator
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.
My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ? |
Looks like it already happened!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
Science does cause one severe problem for you: it makes your beliefs appear silly.
|
juhani_kavi:
How so? Which passages cause problems for you?
Boris:
quote:
Either the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah, or by Jesus, but it can't be both.
|
Jack says the prophecy had to be fulfilled in Isaiah, even though his definition of a prophecy excludes such interpretation. That's what I'm trying to figure out how his definition of a prophecy holds up to scrutiny.
quote:
Now, as a matter of history, the prophecy itself was probably invented after the fulfillment and then backed into, like many Biblical prophesies.
|
Assumes the point at hand, that the Biblical authors would invent such prophecies.  Granted, I can't use this as proof of a prophecy without providing extra-biblical evidence of the famine and feast.
I wanted to test Jack's definition of a prophecy by citing this passage. The problem with Jack's definition, is that it does not permit him to go back and say that this prophecy was fulfilled in the OT. Therefore it cannot have been fulfilled in the NT, since he rules out the use of one book to fulfill the other.
Secondly, there is an artificial division of the OT, since parts of the OT were written at different dates. Therefore, a prophecy in one part of the OT could, by Jack's definition, be fulfilled in another part of the OT, written much later.
quote:
But your saying Jack can't cite this as an example is a cop out to avoid explaining how, according to the infallible Bible, Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy that was, according to the infallible Bible, already fulfilled.
|
True. You assume that the Isaiah prophecy was completely fulfilled in Isaiah. Sometimes what happens is that a portion of the prophecy can be fulfilled, and then completely fulfilled, by Christ.
I'll be back later, to go over the resurrection.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
However, now a great part of mankind has developed to a stage where the biblical "crude" explanations actually DON'T make any sense anymore.
|
DON'T make any sense?
wasn't Kantian concept of morality matching incredibly well with Christian one? and wasn't Descartes metaphysical theory fully compatibile with Christian religious basis?
Concepts in Bible make a lot of sense (IMHO),is the literal interpretation of it that must be refreshed up a bit (always IMHO)
quote:
makes your beliefs appear silly [...] God just remains to be unseen.
|
I don't know if is more silly to believe in God or to reject the existance of a being necessarily out of experience just because it can't be found in experience...
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Not quite. The Bible was written as an excellent historical testimony into the workings of God on the lives of men. You can see this in the historical sections of the bible, where the historian will leave out information not relevant to understanding the nature of God, areas that God does not play a big role in someone's life.
|
 I think there's not a great difference with my previous post: i don't think it is historically accurate because it was not its aim also. Bible is not an history handbook.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
So adults way back when were stupid and dull?
|
In the same sense we were stupid and dull when started learning things in school, yes, that's my opinion;
mankind was moving first steps in the "realm of knowledge" and it had obviously a lot of things to learn.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
That's why aliens had to have built the Pyramids, because obviously they were too stupid to have figured things out for themselves.
|
Pyramids were built by ancient egyptians, i believe.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Today, we are incredibly arrogant, but what astonishes me is the amount of knowledge we have lost over time. How can we judge what people knew, without a full record?
|
 What knowledge we have lost? during the middle-ages western civilization lost a lot of knowledge but mankind (middle-east and far-east civilizations) continued to accumulate it.
Look, we (intended as mankind) discovered a lot of things, looking back one could notice that it was an incredible task, and requested several centuries (if not millennia).
If thinking that the knowledge acquired during this process make us more advanced (always as mankind) than we ever have been in past is arrogance, yes, i'm really arrogant and probably, people in the future will be even more arrogant.
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
Faith means that you trust God with your life based on the assurances provided by scripture.
God, fortunately, does not expect us to believe in his existence through faith alone.
Looking at 1 Corinthians 15, we see that without the resurrection, we have nothing, no concrete evidence that the God that exists is the Christian God.
|
It depends from what is your definition of reason, mine, for sure influenced by philosophy, is what propels science and philosopy (what Vatican calls "natural reason"), it and faith are not at all mutual exclusive but they're also well distincted as Vatican noticed:
There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith.
[...]
Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone.
Notice the "which (natural reason) depends upon sense perception and experience": exactly the point made by Kant.
So, i repeat, metaphysics can't be reached using reason (natural reason), i think so and i'm not the only one. 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.
|
 a similar thing could happen just during the apocalypse...
Anyway i'm not too concerned, the source is a bit biased... just another example of a good PR 
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ?
|
Well, Christian religion is too different from Islam, so a similar fact could happen only if Jesus changed his mind, but since, for definition, God should be perfect and out-of-time a similar thing is simply logically impossible... that guy is an imposter!
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
He didn't have to ask Jews for that as it was clear they were the "chosen people" but what made any of the others think they are the chosen ones?
|
I think it's a cardinal point of christian religion: the universality of the message, Jesus told explicitely to spread the message to all creatures, let me search a bit:
yes, exact words are:"Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." So he can't pop up and ask something about chosen ones because, from the christian point of view, a similar concept simply doesn't exist (another point which IMHO make a lot of sense in christian religion: it underlined men equality one millennium and several centuries before illuminism).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
 |
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Jack says the prophecy had to be fulfilled in Isaiah, even though his definition of a prophecy excludes such interpretation. That's what I'm trying to figure out how his definition of a prophecy holds up to scrutiny. |
I don't see why this is causing confusion.
I did not present Isaiah 7:14 as a successful prophecy. I presented it as a BOGUS prophecy. In fact, it fails several tests, not just one:
Firstly, the claim that this was a prophecy of Jesus is false. It's quite evident from the context that it was a "prophecy" of the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This was supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the author had any knowledge of the future birth of Jesus and intended the prophecy to relate to him!
Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. And the whole tale could be fiction anyhow.
Thirdly, there's no independent confirmation that Jesus fits either. We don't know if he actually WAS born of a virgin, and he was called Jesus, not Immanuel (except by those who wished to link him with this "prophecy").
If Christians wish to argue that the Bible is true "because of the fulfilled prophecies", then surely they need to provide evidence to those who believe the Bible is fiction that predictions actually were made and later fulfilled! Why is this so difficult to grasp?
If you admit that there are no independently checkable examples of successful prophecies, then why make the claim that prophecies confirm the truth of the Bible? If I write a novel in which a character in chapter 3 makes a prediction that comes true in chapter 7: does this confirm that my novel is fact rather than fiction?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Jack:
quote:
I did not present Isaiah 7:14 as a successful prophecy. I presented it as a BOGUS prophecy. In fact, it fails several tests, not just one:
|
That's better. Now we got something to discuss. 
quote:
Firstly, the claim that this was a prophecy of Jesus is false. It's quite evident from the context that it was a "prophecy" of the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This was supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8).
|
Agreed.
quote:
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the author had any knowledge of the future birth of Jesus and intended the prophecy to relate to him!
|
Agreed. A real prophecy will say what will happen without knowing the precise details. A fake prophecy would. Your point here reinforces the legitimacy of the prophecy if fulfilled by Christ.
quote:
Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
|
When do you propose Isaiah was written? Remember, you cannot set a date after every prophecy listed occurred because prophecies cannot happen. That would be circular reasoning.
quote:
Thirdly, there's no independent confirmation that Jesus fits either. We don't know if he actually WAS born of a virgin, and he was called Jesus, not Immanuel (except by those who wished to link him with this "prophecy").
|
The key is not that the child would be born, named Immanuel, but in the meaning of Immanuel, or 'God with us.'
Now, what do you make Luke who does not refer to this particular prophecy, yet still testifies the Virgin birth, through a different account than Matthew. Two independent sources citing one fact seems to me reasonable truth in the virgin birth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
quote:
A lot of. But we don't even have to go there. The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist.
|
quote:
It has not been PROVEN, but nothing has, since the concept of proving does not even exist in the literal sense.
|
juhani_kavi:
These contradict each other. Science merely says that it cannot prove that God exists, not that God cannot exist.
Proofs exist in science, as that is a major portion of what science does, to establish reasonable evidence in favour of one position or the other.
quote:
However, as long as no evidence of god exists, there is no point believing that it does.
|
That's another point, seperate from your earlier points. There is evidence for the existence of God in nature, just not proof of God.
One example is the way in which our bodies work. Evolution says that somehow our bodies randomly formed, over a period of billions of years from a simple string of proteins to a human being. The odds of that happening, even over a period of time through pure chance are staggering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
One example is the way in which our bodies work. Evolution says that somehow our bodies randomly formed, over a period of billions of years from a simple string of proteins to a human being. The odds of that happening, even over a period of time through pure chance are staggering. |
I've asked you several times to back up this assertion with numbers. Nobody knows the odds, and saying they are "staggering" is disingenuous, since you're speaking of that which you don't know.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#csi
Were our bodies perfect in design and function, you might have a point, but they are far from being so. Much of how we are structured is evidence of chance, not design. I'll point you to our bodily pitfalls:
the coccyx, a bone at the base of your spine that has one role in life: to cause you enormous pain if you fall on it (our vestigial tail, evidence of evolution).
the hyoid bone, whose only purpose is to fracture when strangled
earlobes
nipples in men
the retina's blind spot (there's no need for the optic nerve and blood vessels to run across the FRONT of the retina...)
hernia sites
sinuses - a lot of people get sinusitis because they don't drain well. They'd drain brilliantly if our faces pointed down, as a quadrupeds would.
the appendix - a useless organ that can cause a fatal infection
the short urethra in females (prone to urinary infections)
the human neck - very easy to break, and any break will almost certainly kill you.
corneal anomalies (often inherited, and therefore allegedly God's plan...) such as astigmatism, myopia...
the blood supply to the scaphoid bone in the wrist is such that if you break the bone (which is reasonably common), the distal end of the bone loses its blood supply and dies, leaving a mild but permanent disability.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:28
|
|
Boris:
Finally..sorry for the delay.
quote:
Problem is that God's knowledge in this regard is unsubstantiated, whereas medice has demonstrably been able to "bring people back." Looks like as far as evidence goes, we're one over God.
|
Unsubstantiated? Okay...
quote:
Again, such resurrection is not substantiated. The writings of the ancient Egyptians claim that Osiris was resurrected after being hacked to pieces. So did he beat Jesus to the punch?
|
same point reinforced. Fair enough.
quote:
Why do you reject Osiris? Marduk? Zeus? Vishnu? Mohammed's prophecies? Buddha?
Your explanations for those might give a hint as to why I reject your religious dogma, and all religious dogma. The simple matter is that I see absolutely no reason, other than the rather venal "I don't wanna die, I wanna go to heaven!" one, to believe in an all-powerful god who created everything. I feel even less compunction to devote myself to any of the myths created by man, whether it be Christianity, Zorastrianism, Shintoism, etc., as they all are full of, to be frank, a lot of BS.
|
Whoah....lots of stuff here.
1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.
None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims.
2. I don't cite my earlier statement as reason for my faith. I cite that as one of the rewards of my faith, a rather personal insight. If you want to get into my testimony, I'm fine with it, just don't presume I've already given you everything.
3. "myths created by man, whether it be Christianity"
That's not Christianity's claim, we claim that if the resurrection occurs, that God came down to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible records his words and life on Earth.
quote:
If it turns out god exists and he's so petty as to damn me for not believing in him, no matter what my works are as a person, then I wouldn't feel remorse over it, because he will have proven himself evil.
|
Does God hide himself from man? God provides adequate evidence for his existence, hence his judgement.
quote:
That's why I like to find more accurate translations of the Hebrew--after all, the KJV was assembled by people with an agenda as well. I think it is more reasonable to take the words in the Hebrew at their face value in as many instances as possible rather than relying on tortured excuses or inexplicable word changes (NIV) to sanitize what is said.
|
Agreed, though not on the NIV point. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so if we get to this point, I will have to rely upon the work of others. Are you a Hebrew scholar, Boris?
quote:
I don't see why you need to believe in a mythical paradise to have hope for the world. In fact, it seems to me such a notion would inhibit many from trying to make this world a better place. "Oh, things are bad, but it will all be alright in heaven, so I don't need to do anything about it."
|
True, but from an emotional standpoint, it helps keep perspective. We can only change things during our life here on Earth, so we'd better make the best of it. Just don't expect your way to be easy, or everything to ever be fixed. Find your corner and try to hammer things as best you can in the time you have.
quote:
And what failures? If you aim to be perfect, that's your problem. I aim to live the best life of which I am capable, knowing I'm not perfect. Yes, I'll screw up and yes, I'll have bad times--but so what? That's part of life and doesn't mean I'm bad for my mistakes.
|
Unfortunately, that's not the standard Christians are called to emulate.
quote:
You're here, you're alive, you have choices--I don't think life philosophies need to get too complicated beyond that.
|
"Sit in, strap in, and shut up."
Like a little child in the back of a car, I want to look out the window.
I really must go, sorry to not finish up here Boris.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack the Bodiless
|
|
Converted underground reservoir tank.
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
When do you propose Isaiah was written? Remember, you cannot set a date after every prophecy listed occurred because prophecies cannot happen. That would be circular reasoning. |
Because the text later records the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz as if it were an actual event. There is no reason to assume that the author intended Isaiah 8:3 to be a prophecy too, written before the event. "I hereby predict the birth of a green-skinned man with two heads: and, lo, it happened in 2007, so I'm a prophet too!".
quote:
The key is not that the child would be born, named Immanuel, but in the meaning of Immanuel, or 'God with us.'
Now, what do you make Luke who does not refer to this particular prophecy, yet still testifies the Virgin birth, through a different account than Matthew. Two independent sources citing one fact seems to me reasonable truth in the virgin birth. |
There is no reason to assume that Matthew and Luke are independent sources. In fact, Biblical scholars regard both as being derived from Mark and the Q sayings gospel. It is interesting to note that neither Mark nor John include the Nativity.
quote:
1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.
None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims. |
How do you know that they did not produce a body? All you can say is that there is no record of them producing a body. Nor is there any record of them attempting to do so. Maybe because they weren't aware of anyone at the time claiming that Jesus rose from the dead?
As far as I am aware, there is no record of NASA producing evidence that there was NOT a spacecraft following the Hale-Bopp comet. So the Heaven's Gate cult were right?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist
|
I've missed the official declaration of the president of science...
Look, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Godel, and a lot of others scientists better than you and me had a different opinion.
Today science simply remembered what forgot during the hype of first years of illuminism: that its aim is not metaphysics but physics; goal of science, as Galileo wrote, "is to teach us how heaven goes, not how one goes to Heaven"
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Your's isn't?
|
Sorry, probably i missed the point in christian apocalypse when Mohammad pop up and says all muslims to go and convert to christianity...
quote:
Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
Don't change the topic. We were talking about Genesis and the Tower of Bable and the like. Read some earlier posts if you forgot.
|
Oh, so you agree that christian principles depicted in the bible make sense?
This wasn't clear at all by your previous posts
quote:
Why in the name of dog should anyone believe in something that cannot be detected on any level?
"cannot be detected on any level" = "cannot be found in experience" = "cannot be assumed to exist"
|
Interesting, so in your opinion mathematics doesn't exist? or you've found the number four in a drawer of your desk?
Be careful, your position is dangerously similar to Carnap's positivism which tried to deny the soundness of metaphysics asserting that metaphysical problems were indeed meaningless.
Unfortunately Carnap theory falled under its own weight 'cause assuming as existing only things which comes by experience (inductivism) cut completely out deduction with its character of absolute necessity; in fact, even scientific laws can't be proved as correct using only experience; as Carnap himself was forced to admit the degree of confirmation of every universal law in his inductive logic is always zero.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by obiwan18
1. Christ rose from the dead, we have substantive evidence in favour of Christ rising. The Jews and Romans assume an empty tomb, yet could not produce the body in order to disprove the Christians, who preached three weeks later during Pentecost, in Jerusalem, that Christ rose from the dead.
None of the other religions match in terms of falsifieable claims. |
Substantive? First, we don't even have substantive evidence Jesus existed. Second, there is nothing substantive about the resurrection. There are no eye witness accounts, nothing but writings that were made decades after the supposed events. Considering how phenomenal event it would have been to Jesus's followers, who were supposedly literate, you'd think ONE of them would have written it down.
The lack of a body produced is, as Jack points out, not proof of anything. For one, we don't know if there ever was a body to be there in the first place, nor do we have any corraboration Jesus was placed in a tomb of any kind (most "criminals" who were crucified by the Romans were buried in public pits, anyway). The Bible itself offers conflicting accounts of the Resurrection, so it is hard to take it seriously.
quote:
3. "myths created by man, whether it be Christianity"
That's not Christianity's claim, we claim that if the resurrection occurs, that God came down to Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, and that the Bible records his words and life on Earth. |
Sounds little different than things like Athena popping out of Zeus's head and the like.
quote:
Does God hide himself from man? God provides adequate evidence for his existence, hence his judgement. |
God has obviously not provided adequate evidence, or else there wouldn't be such debate over it! All the evidence we have is explicable by natural phenomena, or at least indicates it. Nothing indicates God except the fallacious, "We don't know, ergo God" argument. That, of course, still begs the question, "Well, which God, then?"
quote:
Agreed, though not on the NIV point. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so if we get to this point, I will have to rely upon the work of others. Are you a Hebrew scholar, Boris? |
I don't think one need be a Hebrew scholar to see how inadequate the NIV is. It drops whole versus from the original texts. How is that explicable?
There are enough translations that attempt to be faithful to the actual Hebrew text that being a scholar isn't necessary. The NIV isn't trying to be faithful to the actual text, but rather convey a particular interpretation while avoiding the pitfalls. That's fine if you want, but don't claim it's accurate, because it isn't.
quote:
True, but from an emotional standpoint, it helps keep perspective. We can only change things during our life here on Earth, so we'd better make the best of it. Just don't expect your way to be easy, or everything to ever be fixed. Find your corner and try to hammer things as best you can in the time you have. |
That is pretty much my philosophy, and I did not need belief in God to get me there.
quote:
Unfortunately, that's not the standard Christians are called to emulate. |
Christians must strive to be perfect? News to me--most Christians I know would disagree.
quote:
"Sit in, strap in, and shut up."
Like a little child in the back of a car, I want to look out the window.
I really must go, sorry to not finish up here Boris. |
That's not what I was saying at all. Seeking a purpose in life need not hinge on believing in deities or the like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
I often lean towards the absurd notion that perhaps those who use "Cuz", "Coz", "Exisisit", "Uber*" and "ownZ" - aren't quite able to prove or disprove the existence of the infinitely definable concept of GOD through HUMAN logic (let alone anyone, obviously). Furthermore, I tend to notice that the majority of those actually responsible for dissecting, defining, and explaining the laws and logic of our Universe are either of faith or Agnostic themselves. Imagine that!
THE UNIVERSE just IS, WE KNOW THAT O DAGREEZES FREEZES WATER AND OTHER SCIENCES (we founded it out on the path to all knowing) AND I AM HERE - SO GOD IS UNDENIABLY LIKE SANTA CLAUS ROFLLL UBER FUNNIE
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
UHHH OH, OZ iz onn!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bookwyrm
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Angelo Scotto
Look, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Godel, and a lot of others scientists better than you and me had a different opinion.
. |
I grant you Newton, Galileo, and Godel, but as for Einstein:
quote:
Einstein is quoted HERE and other places as saying
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. |
juhani_kahvi, I would have to disagree with you that the scientific consensus is that god is non-existant. While atheism and agnosticism are much more prevalent amongst scientists than they are among the populace at large, there remains a significant population of theists in the scientific community. I would say that the consensus would be more accurately described as "Saying a god did it doesn't actually explain anything, so when we have phenomena we don't yet understand we should look for explanations that actually do explain things"
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Angelo Scotto
|
|
Milan, Italy
Oct 1999
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I grant you Newton, Galileo, and Godel, but as for Einstein:
[...]
|
Indeed, i never said that Einstein believed in christian God (what he called personal God in your quote), anyway he believed in a supreme being who started all.
In the same book from which your quote comes you can read:
But, on the other hand, every one who is seriously involved in that pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way, the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.
Later he added:
(the scientist's) religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
My point was to rebut the phrase "The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist", as you can notice it is not referring to christian God but with the God concept in its generality, so i'm allowed to underline that Einstein opinion, similarly to Galileo, Newton and Godel one was different.
quote:
Originally posted by Bookwyrm
I would say that the consensus would be more accurately described as "Saying a god did it doesn't actually explain anything, so when we have phenomena we don't yet understand we should look for explanations that actually do explain things" |
"... to teach us how heaven goes, not how one goes to Heaven"
Guess what, i agree completely 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
quote:
The "mystery of the absence of Jesus's body in the vault" can be easily explained by suggesting that Jesus never really existed in the first place. There is not one single piece of evidence for his existence. |
That's great. Atheism in a nutshell, folks.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-06-2003 20:59
|