Thread: The laws of men

Originally Posted by xman

But to be perfectly clear, when we have a 99% probability of something, we may speak with conviction.

X

I take your point X. But in my experience there's generally a trade-off between increased certainty and the ability to be specific.

James.

too much quantum mechanics jimbo

Tim - on the subject of BigBang, I believe, the microwave cosmic background is the current evidence for it. Of course, following through the evidence and the theory may be as hard to non specialist as following the proof of Fermat's great theorem, but that's a whole other topic. The fact that it's easier to believe what a particular book says, than cope with ambiguous evidence, doesn't make one or the other correct.

Yes, there is a very well defined probability that tomorrow morning you'll wake up on Mars, but the fact that you won't see it happen, doesn't mean that you can't use your cellphone, which was created not according to the Bible, but according to the only partially correct theory of quantum mechanics.

Laws of men and laws of God - it would seem to me there's great uncertainty in both.

Originally Posted by gugi

Yes, there is a very well defined probability that tomorrow morning you'll wake up on Mars, but the fact that you won't see it happen, doesn't mean that you can't use your cellphone, which was created not according to the Bible, but according to the only partially correct theory of quantum mechanics.

I think I'll mosey on out of this thread the same way I came in.

Sorry, I think I may have gone too far Hope you guys can handle it, if not I'd be very happy to take it back if I can.

Originally Posted by gugi

Sorry, I think I may have gone too far Hope you guys can handle it, if not I'd be very happy to take it back if I can.

Not too far, in my opinion. I've heard that argument before and I feel it's something of a straw man. I personally may not be able to understand the origins of the universe according to the bible or scientists. That's why scientists are peer reviewed before publishing for the most part. Other people smarter than I compare the theory to what they know of the universe and see if it fits.

Ok, there may be something like that in religion. But I honestly don't think any preacher can explain it even to himself any better than to say have faith.

I'll no longer participate in this debate.

The point of the original debate was to discuss where YOU felt/thought morals come from. Whether they came from God or something else.

Instead this thread has been twisted into a god/no-god debate.

It started when Trewornan started stating his opinion about OTHER's people's beliefs concerning this and proclaimed them facts.

Like I said. There's just about as much evidence pointing TO a grand architect as there is evidence concerning that there is not.

Having this argument will do no good....to anyone.

And that apart from the fact that that wasn't what this thread was about.

The last 2 or so pages I've not seen anyone reply to the original question. So I'm stepping out.


Oh, and X, I've plenty of proof for myself. And could probably dig some up for you as well. But since you have so much FAITH in science. Here's one to ponder for you.

Science does NOT agree with itself either. There are as many opinions in science that clash as there are in religion.

So excuse me if I don't substitute my current (in my opinion better) beliefs for those of a scientist that claims what I believe is not true but can't prove what I should believe either.

Have a nice day

flaming away.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

The point of the original debate was to discuss where YOU felt/thought morals come from. Whether they came from God or something else.

Instead this thread has been twisted into a god/no-god debate.

Very true, sorry for my part in the derailment.

I don't understand. This is how friends talk...isn't it? You start on one subject and by the end of the night you are far astray from where you started, but generally an enjoyable conversation, even if we do disagree.
I mean come on its not like this is some sort of school debate where you have to stay strictly on topic or the teacher tells you that you are a "bad person". and after all isn't this the off topic section?

To me it seems that the person who starts the thread gives a loose direction to the thread and we take it from there, unless of course the original poster is insistent on strict adherence!

As I said, we are all friends here right. It's not like we are going to solve the problems of the world, but we can sure enjoy talking about it, and perchance learn something along the way!

Mark

I'll still follow along and chime in when I have something to say, but I can understand folks wanting to back out of a touchy subject.

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Oh, and X, I've plenty of proof for myself. And could probably dig some up for you as well. But since you have so much FAITH in science. Here's one to ponder for you.

Because I like specifics:

*faith |feɪθ| noun
1 complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2 strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Alex has switched the meaning of 'faith' here from how I used it, the second definition, to the first. This does not mean that science is dogmatic. Science does indeed disagree with itself, but in those cases it agrees with observations from the natural world in both or all conflicting cases such as the double slit experiment