Re: If god exists, what created god?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Clive D.W. Feather: "Re: Reality Checkpoint"
• Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""

Zebedee (lisa@inhb.co.nz) wrote:
> Science and Religion. Well-here I go again. I've done this once before
> you know. Prepared? Good.

> Science states fact. Religion states opinion. All facts are opinions.
> Therefore Science is Religion. Religion is Science. Both are same and
> equal. A scientist may argue of course but hell, thems the brakes mate.

Truth is ies. Love is hate. Peace is war. Welcome to 1984!

Science doesn't state facts is uses observations to try to find some
patterns and explanations for the observations. Also, while facts
_may_ be someone's opinion (except for those facts that noone knows),
this does not mean that all opinions are facts. Just a little logical
fallacy you seem to have fallen into. Since opinions are not (all)
facts (eg. the opinion that the world is flat) your equality ("both
are the same and equal) obviously breaks down. "Thems the brakes
mate", indeed!

Even besides this logical fallacy, your argument fails because the
_methodology_ between science and reigion differ so greatly. In science
on must use observations (usually repeatable) and make testable
predictions. If a theory fails in its predictions, this indicates
a problem with it. Religion on the other hand, is almost always just
an "appeal to authority" type arguement. For example, many Christians
claim the Bible "proves" that Christianity is the one true religion.
Also, when flawed predictions are made (eg. when Pat Robertson
predicts armageddon and it fails to arrive) they ignore them.

> DID YOU KNOW - that under very very very tiny microscopic observation
> particles of stuff in general (you know, everything) behaves according to
> the EXPECTATIONS of the INDIVIDUAL SCIENTIST? It's in the books, and
> they've never figured it out to this day. To do so would (sin!) be to
> embrace religion (sin!) and no reputable man of fact and figure could do
> that. So, like any other good "failed" scientific experiment they put it
> in the fine print and no one ever knows unless they look.

This is a very peculiar claim and is something you should back up with
documentation. After all if it is "in the books", certainly YOU must be
able to give some references.

> Good democratic free-speaking informative society isn't it?

> Arguments welcome, Love me

• Next message: Clive D.W. Feather: "Re: Reality Checkpoint"
• Previous message: Ken Smith: "Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory""