Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Bob Casanova: "Re: The Flat Earth?"
• Previous message: Terry Flanagan: "Re: Best American Composer."

>
> Conversely, religious faith, astrology, etc. give up seeking
> knowledge. Simply accept was is given to you and shut up.

I've never found spirituality or religion to be particularly easy. Most
intelligent people arent willing to just accept and shut up. I find that
for me its a continual exploration/observation in an effort to understand
myself. I am very much a seeker of knowledge, and I'm not interested in
illogical or unsupported "faith". I am, however, very much a theist,
committed to seeking and understanding my own soul.
>
> Yep! Obviously two sides of the same coin to me!
>
> > So what IS the difference? Please don't persist in arguing in your
> > defence over what may or may not be "outside the realm of science".
> >
>
> Are you really as scientifically illiterate as you imply.
> The existence of god falls outside of scientific query to the extent
> that no comment can be made without observations to base them on.
> There is no experiment that could be formulated to prove god exists or not.
> So, within the realm of scientific query, that is, using as a basis of
> understanding the scientific method (in some form), science is mute on
> the subject of god. There is no compelling evidence for the existence
> of god within that realm.
>
fine. however, I'd hesitate to allow that the scientific realm
encompases all existence. As in, as you say, there is no basis to prove
or disprove the existence of God. So if God exists, it is at a level as
yet inaccessible to science.

• Next message: Bob Casanova: "Re: The Flat Earth?"
• Previous message: Terry Flanagan: "Re: Best American Composer."