-
Oh, think again what you wrote.
So you don't accept the gravity theory?
-
you doubt and pursue each theory based on how much evidence there is on it.
you don't accept the theory of gravity 100% maybe 99.999999%. this is why it is still called a THEORY and not a LAW
-
so you accept religon in a percentage?
-
i don't completely dismiss it as a possibility, no. this is how i have always felt. that is why i am interested in discussing it with you.
-
This is a whole theory
with cement legs.
There are thousands of miracles
to prove that.
And you just tell me:
"i don't completely dismiss it as a possibility"?
-
i don't believe the legs are cement- more like clay.
that's what people said about the earth being flat thousands of years ago.
i may be wrong, maybe the world is flat.....
-
The materialists at that time
were correct to accept the
theory that the earth is flat.
When a better theory
was found, they accepted it
because it was better.
-
You cannot explain something.
I can.
So you acept my theory
until you find a better one.
-
just because you have a theory, it doesn't mean i have to believe it.
didn't someone (colombus) doubt the theory of the earth being flat, experiment, and then prove it wrong. if he believed the theory, he never would have set sail for india towards the west.
-
If you cannot prove it is wrong,
you have to accept it.
Or you are not a materialist.
-
i do think i can prove it wrong. i just don't know how yet. if you accept it then you will never be able to find a way to prove it wrong because you are giving in.
if you mean what i think you mean by being a materialist: who said i am a materialist?
on that note: what do you mean by "materialist?"
-
You accept it
until you find
a better theory.
The fact that you accept it
doesn't mean that you stop searching.
I have accepted that theory
but if you find me a better one,
I will accept yours.
-
about the materialist thing.
I supposed that you were a materialist,
as you only accept what science proves.
Am I wrong? Am I too drunk ?
-
you may accept it, but the fact that you are still searching means that you are accepting the possibility that it is wrong (doubting).
i can never prove your theory with the water because i don't know the exact conditions under which you experimented. however i will try and will gladly discuss it with you.
here're some thoughts for now- maybe the water didn't have any organic matter (bacteria) in it and maybe the plastic it was in was less sensitive than most to light, or maybe it wasn't exposed to light very much in the first place, etc.
if that's what you mean by materialist, you might be right, i'm not sure yet.
on that thought, i must say that i enjoyed talking with you, but i have to go somewhere with my parents now and would like to continue this conversation later.
-
I drunk from there.
It touched my lips.
So there must have been bacteria.
-
there must be food for the bacteria in the water. different bacteria thrive and live in different conditions-temperature, humidity, different foods, etc.
just so you know: for a proper scientific experiment, you must have as many samples as there are variables (or as specific to what you want to test for as possible) for example you'd need a bottle with water that was blessed and water that wasn't blessed, you must have enough of each of these samples to test each for other factors: a bottle with water that has bacteria, a bottle that you know doesn't, one in glass and one in plastic, etc. there must be as many samples of each of these to test for different conditions: high or low temperature, high or low light, shaken or stirred ( :) ), etc. and so on and so on. i'm sure you get the idea. this is a true scientific experiment. you can't have only one bottle and call it a scientific experiment.
-
That's a very good point Pce... there is no way of knowing exactly why that bottle of water didn't stink unless all the variables where eliminated and only one was left. This is how science is related to mathmatics... you have a number of unknown factors (variables) and therefore to solve the equasion you have to eliminate all the variable but one... then you will know the deffinition of that variable and therefore solve the equasion. Did Drunktank take a glass of water that was blessed and put it in a glass jar and put it in the refrigerator? How do we know it's not the glass... or the low tempeture that kept the water from stinking? It's like looking at an equasion and ignoring all the other variables but one. Maybe you came out with the correct answer... but it's a guess and hardly scientific.
-
Please, enough of theological discussion now...This is a leftist forum and not the forum of Jehovah's Witnesses. :)
-
thanks redceltic for clearing up what i wanted to say.
okay malte- sorry about that :biggrin:
-
the way science and theology analyze things has been disscussed by stalin in his book, dialectical and historical materialism, he says that people have two ways of interpreting what they see, there's the materialist, and there's the metaphysical, materialism stresses the belief in facts, things that can be proven, that's how they analyze things, materialism believes in prefabricated explanations, if they experience something they are unfamiliar with, they try to apply it to what they already know, they don't bother looking for more answers.
-
i dont think science can prove the existence of god, nor can it prove anything for that matter, because in science there is always a possibility that it could be wrong, it could be argued... afterall, it is created by man, and man is not all knowing.. while god (to me) is constant, science is not... my religion does not need to be evolved, it is made to fit all the times till eternity... however, very much like communism, it is not applied in the right way by the ppl who claim to belong to it...
nevertheless, god has commanded us to seek science and learn by whichever means is necessary... i think that god created science as a means for us to understand and appreciate what he has created... and who knows? maybe someday science would get so concretely true that it could prove the existence of god to the faithless...
-
I agree with Malte... there is way to much theological discussion on these pages for my taste...