On 15 Nov 2009, at 04:48, Brent Meeker wrote:
Science is neutral in the sense that science doesn't care what reality
is,
Fundamental science does care on what really is. But it is admitted by
serious inquirer that there are alternative theories.
but science assumes that there is enough
On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell
them we're agnostic about God
Who them? Which
Bruno,
you navigate into perillous waters. Your statements are extremely smart and
applicable - to a certain limit, at which they vanish into undecidedness.
You chose arithmetic thinking as your anchor to firmness - it is your choice
and it works for you. It does not work for me: I am still in
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
Because that's what most people who use the term mean. And if we tell
them we're agnostic about
On 14 Nov 2009, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
Because that's what most people who use the term
On 14 Nov 2009, at 17:48, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
you navigate into perillous waters.
I know, but that is the fun. Life and everything interesting apperas
on the border of the non controlable.
Your statements are extremely smart and applicable - to a certain
limit, at which they
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 22:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Nov 2009, at 01:33, Brent Meeker wrote:
Why should we use the term God in the sense of those who clearly
have confused science with temporal authoritative argument?
http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/Carolyn-AAI09-720-web.mov
Carolyn Porco - the genius behind the Cassini mission. My favourite
female on the planet.
If you ever read Carl Sagan's only novel Contact (or saw the movie)
- this is the person on whom Sagan modelled Ellie Arroway
Hi Kim,
Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very
nice talk. I appreciate a lot.
She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science is
agnostic.
I believe in God (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I believe, g
= 'God' exists, ~ = negation)
But
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Hi Kim,
Thank you very luch for the link to Carolyn Porco's presentation. Very
nice talk. I appreciate a lot.
She is correct (even comp-correct) on the main thing: Science
is agnostic.
"I believe in God" (Bg) is a religious statement. (B = I
On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic. But the
trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the
existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved
us but had an obsessive interest in our
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Nov 2009, at 21:01, Brent Meeker wrote:
I used to tell people who asked that I was an agnostic. But the
trouble with that was that they supposed I was uncertain about the
existence of *their* god: a supernatural immortal agent would loved
us but had an
12 matches
Mail list logo
