Quote:
Klvino [ORB] said:
That I certainly agree. Faith and Science can exist in the world together. The point I make is that Faith has no place as Science unless we are talking about the mechanics by which religion function. Faith is the means by which we live, not the means by which the universe functions. Science, on the other hand, has no right to be a religion, but an method by which we can obtain answers to questions we ask.
My problem was with your arguments for that being based in logical fallacy to justify it.
|
Am interesting viewpoint. Albert Einstien said: �Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� Perhaps you know better.
I having difficulty understanding what you perceive as fallacy. Is it that Cause & effect is an established scientific principle? Is it that the Universe had a beginning? Or is it just using these things to come to a solution that you don�t like?
One big fallacy is that science has ruled out the possibility of an intelligent designer in the creation of Life, the Universe & everything. Though such is promoted by some in the scientific community, Science can neither prove nor disprove such a thing. Science, true science, deals with the physically tangable, and such a discovery is outside it�s perview. My statement merely shows that the existence of a Creator is a logically viable solution, and for me, the most logical.
An unfortunate truth in the scientific community is that there is a political side to it. John L. Casti in his book Paradigms Lost stated: �Scientific truth is determined at least as much by the social climate of the times as by the dictates of reason and logic alone� Unfortunately, as politics in ant other arena, some nasty things take place, including intimination and peer pressure.
In his book Science under siege, Michael Fumento was discussing the scientific controversy over Dioxin, a key ingredient in Agent Orange. He made this observation: �We are all, depending on whom you listen to, either potential victims of poisoning or potential victims of gross disinformation.� Isn�t politics grand! It makes it hard to dig in and determine what is really scientificly factual. Unfortunately, many just get swept along with the current, going along with what is popular without ever trying to look beneath the surface. Fortunately, there have been those not happy with the staus quo, or else we would al bw learning Alchemy.
Have you ever heard some expert say something like: All reasonable scientist accept �, or Only the uneducated would deny � This is a form of intimidation & peer pressure. It has been employed in many areas, including the existence, or non-existance of God. In this area, there are plenty of well respected experts in the different scientific fields that recognize, not even the plausibility of a Divine Intellect, but also the logic of His existence.
PHYSICS professor Ulrich J. Becker, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated when commenting on the existence of God: �How can I exist without a creator? I am not aware of any compelling answer ever given. If you discovered how one wheel in the �clock� turns�you may speculate how the rest move, but you are not entitled to call this scientific and better leave alone the question of who wound up the spring.�
Mathematics professor John E. Fornaess, of Princeton University, was asked for his thoughts on the existence of God, he replied: �I believe that there is a God and that God brings structure to the universe on all levels from elementary particles to living beings to superclusters of galaxies.�
Physics professor Henry Margenau, of Yale University, said that he was convinced that the laws of nature were created by God, adding: �God created the universe out of nothing in an act which also brought time into existence.�
The book The Mystery of Life�s Origin, three scientists explain that a Creator is a plausible explanation for life�s origin.
There are a lot more, but, hey, I�ve used enough of this thread.
One more Qoute, more in line with AT�s thread:
Voltaire stated, �If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him�
Now I know I�m going to get flamed, though I really don�t know why some find me so threatening. To keep it from getting out of hand, I will not respond to such flaming.
By the way, I respect the all the views that have been stated in this thread. Keep it up.
