Originally posted by Eingaben If this is his argumentation what do you think about its validity
Honestly I think it is neither here nor there. I can attempt to refute the existence of Jesus, but it does not mean that the supernatural is any less valid, nor science any more valid.
Originally posted by Starrman I'm not prepared to get into a discussion about prior cause here, but I will say that I believe that the Cosmological arguement is philosophy, not science. Were we in a discussion about it I perhaps would be tempted to use scientific examples to illustrate my points, but I would still be philosophising. It is important to secure the process of science as ...[text shortened]... ssion of the origins of the universe, to which science is, as yet, unable to conclusively prove.
Thank You for your honesty... Though the merit of that conversation would go a long way in the scientific community... I mean as far as Philisophical frameworks for scientific solutions is concerned (See The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn )... Now what do you think about kingdanwa's "Spiritual Turn" as you have sniffed out and as I have tried to lure out in a previous post?
Originally posted by Starrman Honestly I think it is neither here nor there. I can attempt to refute the existence of Jesus, but it does not mean that the supernatural is any less valid, nor science any more valid.
Though it is neither here nor there I would like to see your refutation of history (I mean the existence of Jesus).
Originally posted by Starrman Honestly I think it is neither here nor there. I can attempt to refute the existence of Jesus, but it does not mean that the supernatural is any less valid, nor science any more valid.
You and your Jesus talk. Let's talk about Einstein and his evils. E does not equal MC Squared. I offer to you as evidence:
A. Einstein was a communist.
B. He killed Japanese people.
C. His institution (science) is at fault for modern day chemical warfare.
How does your Jesus fit in? Can we please stick to science?
Originally posted by kingdanwa You and your Jesus talk. Let's talk about Einstein and his evils. E does not equal MC Squared. I offer to you as evidence:
A. Einstein was a communist.
B. He killed Japanese people.
C. His institution (science) is at fault for modern day chemical warfare.
How does your Jesus fit in? Can we please stick to science?
Neither A, B, nor C refute the E=MC(squared), I am keeping to science, you are the one departing from it.
My Jesus? I don't understand what you are talking about.
Originally posted by no1marauder The Christians on this site really show a laughable misunderstanding of science. Science is based on establishing descriptions of physical reality that can be tested experimentally. The "moral character" (whatever that means) of a scientist is utterly irrelevant has to whether his hypotheses are verifible by experiment. Ask the people at Hiroshima if E=MC2 (don't know how to do exponents).
Marauder: "The Christians on this site really show a laughable misunderstanding of science."
Oops, the Fallacy of (Hasty) Generalisation .......
Originally posted by kingdanwa You and your Jesus talk. Let's talk about Einstein and his evils. E does not equal MC Squared. I offer to you as evidence:
A. Einstein was a communist.
B. He killed Japanese people.
C. His institution (science) is at fault for modern day chemical warfare.
How does your Jesus fit in? Can we please stick to science?
Since A, B and C are factually untrue, you don't have much of an argument.
Originally posted by Starrman Then why is this in the spirituality forum? I believe from previous threads, that he is a theist and as such is likely to be suggesting a link between his refutation of Einstein and the truth of his god.
If Kingdanwa is a theist, does that discredit his claim concerning Einstein??
Originally posted by kingdanwa Speaking of Hiroshima, we can add that to Mr. Einstein's disgusting past, further casting a shadow on any "contribution" he may have made on society.
How so? His entire contribution to the Manhattan Project, besides his prior scientific work, was the letter to FDR saying German scientists might be working on a nuclear fission bomb. He did not participate in the building of the A Bomb or the decision to drop it. And you're being inconsistent; which are you questioning; his science as originally stated or his overall contribution to society?
30 Aug '05 20:33
E does NOT equal MC Squared
Back to Top