Jump to content

needimprovement

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Good

About needimprovement

  • Rank
    Atom

Profile Information

  • College Major/Degree
    Computer Science
  • Favorite Area of Science
    all

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I do not believe in the existence of mind without matter. What is mind? We have very few analogues that we know - the fields. What is the magnetic field and especially the gravitational field? About gravitational field we know it is a property of matter.We know its effect but do not know what's gravitational field. (About the magnetic field we know more, but we still do not know what it is.) One's properties matter is that two materials can not be in the same place at the same time. But fields may be in the same place and same time.So fields are not matter. What are they? By analogy we can ask what is mind? Has certain physical properties as fields but not yet discovered? Mind can be like fields and can influence the matter? Can anyone show any evidence?
  2. Many things. When you talk about a strong vs weak currency, you're referring to its exchange rate in terms of some standard or relative to another currency.
  3. Precisely! He was right. Without integrity you are free to falsify the results! (And some do...) They don't! Values like love and respect for the rights of others never change. On what grounds you assert that it must be one or the other? I voted "strongly agree" on behalf of Marc Oraison. He defines morality as "the science of what man ought to be by reason of what he is" (p. 22).
  4. What if there was evidence that murdering babies was OK? I can't imagine what kind of evidence that could possibly be, and I am sure that its very far fetched. But evidence against Earth being subject to gravity is also very far fetched. I think the absurdity of Marat's question is mostly because of the emotional reaction any of us would have at murdering babies. Nobody would feel awful about giving up gravity, but we get a very strong reaction to baby killing. One choice is way easier than the other, but not for the same reasons. Again, it's comparing apples to oranges.
  5. Try to kill your own babies and you will see. 1. All scientific propositions are based on our certainty that we are thinking. 2. Science presupposes integrity. 3. Scientific conclusions are provisional whereas moral principles are not! It's like comparing apples and oranges. Even if both propositions are certain, though both are approached by different avenues. This is another reason why scientism is not so humble a creed as it might be. There is an illusion among those dedicated to the creed that only science can achieve true certainty compared to all other avenues of knowledge. And even then, the certainty of science is only provisional. Our certainty about gravity, for example, is provisional and subject to incoming evidence; whereas our certainty about the immorality of killing innocent children is absolute.
  6. Murdering innocent babies is always wrong, but Earth's gravity is variable. So I am more certain of the former.
  7. To illustrate the absurdity of posing this as a binary decision, please answer the following question: Have you stopped beating your wife? [ ] Yes [ ] No
  8. Science today has been hijacked by an ideology. Let us look at Hubble and redshift: http://astronomy-mall.com/Adventures...e/peculspr.htm http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html http://news.discovery.com/space/no-t...t-quasars.html This article tells us there is no time dilation for quasars. There are other examples of non-distance related redshift. Even the sun exhibits a redshift. Hubble himself admitted his observation may not have something to do with distance. The Church has infallibly determined that the universe is of finite age.
  9. It seems that the supposed schism between science and religion is overblown and unnecessary. Everything I read and understand about science of all types only confirms for me the greatness of God's plan. I don't understand why some scientists ( broadly speaking) seem to think that because they can understand and quantify the mysteries of the universe that it somehow negates God.
  10. You do not believe in God: why should you now believe in Satan? Do you really believe Satan exists if God doesn't? If you don't, yours is no argument.
  11. The universe must be more ancient than the ancients could fathom. That is one reason why Genesis is such a simplistic explanation for Creation. No modern explanation including the idea of evolution would have been possible three thousand years ago for the simple reason that science as we recognize it today had yet to arrive. God could not reveal the mechanism of evolution, but God could and did reveal that Creation occurred over time and in a certain prescribed order. Genesis tells us that the universe began with an explosion of light, which modern science confirms. Genesis tells that life began in the sea and moved to the earth and the sky, which science also tells us. Science tells us that man was created last, which science also tells us. In no other world religion is the account of the order of creation so consistent with science as that of Genesis. It is true there are fanciful aspects of creation also present in Genesis, but they are not sufficient to overcome the more impressively accurate aspects of creation that seems to be the product of inspiration rather than mere guesswork. Yes, religion has one standard, and science has another. But in a very general way the standards do not have to be so diametrically opposed as some have tried to make out. This is not a discussion about creation/ID vs evolution but whether it is recognised by theists or atheists. The debate is not about evolution because it is recognised by the Church. I am reffering to the message delivered by Pope John Paul to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 22 October 1996. He said: By the way, "evolution" and "by accident" are two different things. My appologies also. let's go back to the original topic: Theists and Atheists fight.
  12. No because there is only one standard. And Catholic Church accepts evolution.
  13. I was under the impression that dating anything was an iffy situation. The billion year old Earth concept is a necessary component of evolution, and without that extreme length of time, evolution would be all but impossible. Even so, if God did indeed create the world, no one could say at what state it was created. So while God may have created Earth 15,000 years ago, He could easily have created it in the state of a 4.5 billion year old planet.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.