So, as a contrast: What does religion say before the fact? Any predictions that we can check?
DagT Den 27. okt. 2006 kl. 16.09 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Of course one should never be too impressed by the sciences ability > to explain natural phenomena. Because science is by definition > "after the fact." The rules of science and math are based on > observation of the very things they attempt to describe. It follows > that the pieces would fit together very nicely. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Of course, that's why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist or believer >> in any God. I >> can't know, so I just consider the possibilities, and being >> outside the system >> the design theory seems to have much less success in predicting >> results of >> natural processes than the scientific theory. So, if you are >> talking about >> nature I simply use the most sucessful model. That does not mean >> that the model >> is perfect, it just gives the best results. >> >> By the way I didn't say anything about the existance of a designer >> in the post >> below, I just said that the argument is wrong because from my >> point of view >> natures ability to make these thing is no surprise. >> >> DagT >> >>> Fra: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> There is a wide gulf between the assumption that something MUST have >>> had a designer and the much more plausible assumption that something >>> MIGHT have had a designer. Those who believe our knowledge of nature >>> and the universe is complete are themselves lacking in real >>> knowledge >>> and understanding. >>> On Oct 26, 2006, at 5:20 PM, DagT wrote: >>> >>>> The only reason why some think things like this has to have a >>>> designer is because they cant believe that such structures can have >>>> natural causes, which in my view just tells me that they don�t >>>> know >>>> much about nature. >>>> >>>> DagT >>>> >>>> Den 26. okt. 2006 kl. 21.41 skrev Tom C: >>>> >>>>> No - I see it has attributes that indicate it has a maker or >>>>> designer. A >>>>> roughly symmetrical chipped piece of flint lying on the ground is >>>>> believed >>>>> to be an arrowhead. We don't see the aboriginal that crafted the >>>>> arrowhead >>>>> yet we believe the event occurred. We don't see the designer >>>>> of our >>>>> physical universe, far more complex, and since we can't see >>>>> one, we >>>>> believe >>>>> one does not exist. >>>>> >>>>> That doesn't manifest ignorance? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tom C. >>>>> >>>>>> That is astonishing. I'm an atheist but it's difficult to look at >>>>> that >>>>>> photo and not perceive a creator. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ah, the Argument from Personal Ignorance - "I don't know how that >>>>> came >>>>> to be, therefore God made it". >>>>> >>>>> Bob >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>>> DagT >>>> http://dag.foto.no >>>> >>>> Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT http://dag.foto.no Beware of internet links. You never know what is on the other side. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
