IMO Adelheid and Dyrwen shoud meet..They would have a great discussion together :nod:
Printable View
IMO Adelheid and Dyrwen shoud meet..They would have a great discussion together :nod:
I absolutely love science, but there is a lot of supernatural stuff that science cannot explain. I've had some weird experiences, which prove to me that there must be something out there, there must be another realm aside from this one. I've had a lot of ghostly encounters and so have other family members of mine. How can science explain that? To a certain degree, science can explain what we know very well. But it's what we don't know that's the question...
We know what we know because science has explained it to us.
I think there are science and knowledge..And knowledge may not be scientific but still it can tell us about the things we know now...
But the thing with science is that theories are constantly changing. In a few years time, the cell theory (for example) can be modified and refined, as well as other theories. Look at the many changes made to the atomic theory
Therein lies its value. It can be updated, upgraded.
Well, some folks prefer absolutes to absolutely relatives. Upgrading makes people feel unsure, so they might feel they'd have to change their minds too much in time, rather than be safe and secure in a single belief that doesn't ever have to change.
Molko,
You say your experiences prove to you that there must be something out there. Weird experiences, or any experiences for that matter, don't prove anything about external reality, I'm afraid.
My family and I have lived in a haunted house once, and each family member had something happen to them. Science cannot explain that, and I'm not saying anyone else has to believe in ghosts and the supernatural because I've had an experience. What I'm just saying is that there must be something out there beyond science, but for the moment that cannot be proven. :) And besides, if science can be ugraded, what we do know is therefore not definate, only an inference
Because if we knew the definate truth, why do we keep seeking to refine what we know?
But isn't continuous development/ivention/improvement the main purpose of science? If people stop challenging, then where's the progress?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
I used the word "relatives" to imply that everything they study changes over time and they're fine with that. They take on the challenges time dictates to them and rework their ideas. But some people want absolutes and will never accept science's relative concepts, no matter how fullproof some of them are, because the idea that it has changed from something else or is going to change in the future, makes them believe that something must be wrong with it, so they justify a reason not to believe in it, while ignoring their own beliefs as changing with time.Quote:
Originally Posted by subterranean
Molko's case is interesting to me, because I have often come across people who form theories based upon experience and then assume that when someone attacks their theory, they are in fact denying the experience. UFO's are a case in point. I have no doubt that the UFO experience is in many cases genuine. I also have no doubt that there are no alien extraterrestrial civilisations that visit us, and that the theories the UFO experiencers put forward are false. Experience does not validate impossible or improbable theories. I think the same can be said for the born-again christian experience.
Not at all, Dyr, you're absolutely welcome to the conversation, it's not limited to be merely between two people. Besides, you argue much more effectively than I do. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Basically, I second all you say. It's very nice to see that there are some people around who don't believe that God made the world, and for his own amusement, too. I mean, I guess if you look at it from God's point of view, you do have to be a little compassionate for him and say, well, perhaps he was a little lonely in his little infinite plaything of a universe. So maybe I shouldn't be too hard on the poor guy. ;)
And AP, sorry for not replying before to...
And I must say that I'm very flattered that someone finds some sense in my ideas. :)Quote:
...I must say I do like the way you think....
...I hadn't noticed your message, I somehow managed an oversight and skipped straight to Dyrwen's. Beats me why.
Sure would. I guess they think that God is far too "above" (excuse the pun) the Devil to be friends with him, especially since he (that is, the Devil! :D) sinned (er, did he? I figure he must have...but I haven't really heard anything concerning why the Devil is the Devil and why exactly he got on bad terms with God, but...I digress...). But, myself, I have much more respect for the idea of the Devil than the idea of God. The Devil is clever, cunning, and crafty, which obviously he has to be for his position. I find I have much more sympathy for him than I do for God. God is simply the monarchal ruler who created the universe for the fun of it and got a bit bored.Quote:
Have you ever wondered why it is that Christians don't pray for God and the Devil to be mates again? I mean it would solve a lot of problems wouldn't it?
Has anybody here read Paradise Lost by John Milton? I haven't, myself, but according to my textbook in it, Satan "depicts God as despotic and unjust in his treatment of Satan. God and his angels, however, reflect the attitudes of an absolute monarch and his court. Satan and his legions of fallen angels support the idea of independence and freedom of will and evokes sympathy in the reader." Might be worth the read.
Now, Adelheid, :)
I have to agree with Dyrwen that this is a bad analogy. When you think about it, a very bad analogy. Cakes and the universe simply do not mix. They can't be compared, a cake takes someone to make it, and a universe is simply there from the beginning of time and space and exploded. What happened before time and space began is not of our concern, because all we know so far is time and space.Quote:
Suppose you were baking a cake.
I have to disagree with you there. The Universe being perfect (call we it perfect? It has its imperfections...but they make it perfect as a whole. I think perfection without imperfection is very imperfect.) as it is is simply a matter of pure chance. There are many "histories", as scientists call it, out there (sounds like science fiction but is actually science fact), many different versions of the Universe which never became anything like our own. Not all of them have intelligent life. Some of them do. There is a universe in which everything happens, many different Earth's, many different possibilities. That we fall into this one is simply fate/chance.Quote:
How much more do you think about this world? How much consideration has been put into it.
Don't know if that made any sense. In general, after seven pm the computer and myself don't combine very well...so if I got anything scientific wrong, don't blame The Universe in a Nutshell, blame my tired brain for twisting and contorting it.
I must be off now. Bye everyone,
Miss Darcy.
I am studying Paradise Lost right now, at a Christian University no less, and Milton's sympathies with Satan go far beyond that quick evaluation. I would love to talk more about it but that'll happen in General lit. I'm not forum-savvy enough to figure out how to add a link, so just go to General lit and check it out! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Miss Darcy