28 Jun '08 08:30>
god's name is burt.... if you follow him, you have to have monday's off work as that is a day of rest and reflection, apart from that, burt pretty much lets you do what you want
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonwell the jews thought their book was pretty cool then. so if you find evolution cool and want to insert it in a religious book, and then later on it is found to be incorrect, won't the future generation view you as illogical as we find those jews with their OT or the christians?
I would like to starting a new religion: one where the god that is worshiped is the “god of logic” or, to be more specific, “god of critical and independent thinking”
There will have to be a special bible for this religion called “the logical testament” which has scripture and lots of catchy beautiful verses that preaches the big-bang theory, gene ...[text shortened]... critical and independent thinking it promotes!
Seriously, I think I may be onto something here!
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf it's verifiable as true then people wouldn't see it as illogical. The OT and NT aren't verifiable - and in some cases are verifiable to be false.
well the jews thought their book was pretty cool then. so if you find evolution cool and want to insert it in a religious book, and then later on it is found to be incorrect, won't the future generation view you as illogical as we find those jews with their OT or the christians?
Originally posted by PsychoPawnthey were logical to those people. doesn't matter that they used the wrong methods to reach those conclusions. maybe we will be proven wrong as well.
If it's verifiable as true then people wouldn't see it as illogical. The OT and NT aren't verifiable - and in some cases are verifiable to be false.
I'm against putting those things in a religious book though because it would tend to remove the tentative part of science from it. Evolution, relativity, atomic theory et al are the best explanations that ...[text shortened]... world, but we can't remove the possibility that someone will come up with something better.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI didn't say believable, I said verifiable.
they were logical to those people. doesn't matter that they used the wrong methods to reach those conclusions. maybe we will be proven wrong as well.
maybe future generations will say "Quantum physics? how cute, but so wrong" doesn't matter that our experiments verified quantum physics, the prophets of the OT were as believable to the jews as E=mc2 is to us.
Originally posted by ZahlanziI rather doubt that. You probably mean "some of the people back then had blind faith as some do now."
they were logical to those people.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnJonah saying "i got eaten by a whale" is verifiable to the OT people. To verify is to ask questions and compare answers. the people of the OT only asked "what did he say?" "If he said he was eaten by a whale sent by god then it must be true". The people of modern time might ask "can a whale eat a man?" "How could the man have survived?" and arrive to the conclusion that it is false.
I didn't say believable, I said verifiable.
E=mc2 is verifiable.
The prophecies of the OT are not.
The difference isn't how believable they are, the difference is how verifiable their statements are.
You're right that maybe we will be proven wrong. That's why I specifically said that I wouldn't put these things into some kind of religious bo verify these things. Verification in science is critical. In religion it's not important.
Originally posted by twhiteheadthose people, some people. i am saying that viewing some people illogical in some aspects doesn't mean we will not be viewed the same by future generations who will wonder how were we so ignorant as to not figure out how easy time travel is (for example)
I rather doubt that. You probably mean "some of the people back then had blind faith as some do now."
Nowadays some people think their religion is logical (but cant back that up with logic) and others are quite happy leaving their religions illogical. knightmeister for example thinks that illogicality is one of the hallmarks of his religion and would not have it any other way.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf he said he was eaten by a whale sent by god then it must be true". The people of modern time might ask "can a whale eat a man?" "How could the man have survived?" and arrive to the conclusion that it is false.
Jonah saying "i got eaten by a whale" is verifiable to the OT people. To verify is to ask questions and compare answers. the people of the OT only asked "what did he say?" "If he said he was eaten by a whale sent by god then it must be true". The people of modern time might ask "can a whale eat a man?" "How could the man have survived?" and arrive to the co ...[text shortened]... at i am saying is that different cultures have different methods of discovering truth.
Originally posted by ZahlanziGiven the restrictions on how we can edit it here, it is better written E = mc^2 because I have learned from my advanced maths courses that the ^ can be taken to mean “to the power of”.
they were logical to those people. doesn't matter that they used the wrong methods to reach those conclusions. maybe we will be proven wrong as well.
maybe future generations will say "Quantum physics? how cute, but so wrong" doesn't matter that our experiments verified quantum physics, the prophets of the OT were as believable to the jews as E=mc2 is to us.
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltone=mc^2 is the mass energy equivalent. nuclear power stations use fission, no connection there, look it up. if e=mc^2 would be wrong it won't change the fact that an atomic bomb goes "boom" . so it would still work but we wouldn't know the exact amount of energy released.
Given the restrictions on how we can edit it here, it is better written E = mc^2 because I have learned from my advanced maths courses that the ^ can be taken to mean “to the power of”.
If E = mc^2 was wrong then both nuclear power stations and atom bombs would not work!
If quantum physics was wrong then the semiconductors in the transistors ...[text shortened]... ine you can name.
It is therefore totally absurd to suggest that the whole of science is wrong.