Searz wrote:
Your lack of capitalization is giving me cancer.
your excessive numbre of posts with no real content is giving me cancer.
also, you're being a *****.
sirell wrote:
The point which science falls apart:
The Problem of Induction.
i disagree since all science does is to make an interpretation of the observable universe and changes in the observable known have always been reinterpreted, therefore broathening our knowledge.
in many cases, you simply don't solve the whole equation because it is too complicated. that's what engineers do, and you see planes flying every day.
induction is valid as long as what you observe doesn't dismiss your statement/equation. you can also simplify what you observe and check where it fails.
example: beams. generally, Euler's theory is used, but it fails on short beams. so you can use Timoshenko's theory, which accounts for plane rotation. but, also this can fail at atomic level, because both assume a continuous medium, and we all know it is not. however, Euler's is constantly used to make calculations over your knee, and Thimoshenko's is used in FEM analysis for airplanes and bridges.
science does not fail with induction because science avoids fallacy of argument. It just shows it works with what it can observe. even a scientist can take the perspective he wants on a find, just like the Higg's Boson is often called "God's Particle".
Pheyniex wrote:
your excessive numbre of posts with no real content is giving me cancer.
also, you're being a *****.
Bwahahahaha
Says the guy who started the *****ing (and is now continuing it) XD
Not mentioning your grammar problems: your argument is as valid as the rest of your comments in this thread are long. Don't ***** so much.
sirell wrote:
The point which science falls apart:
The Problem of Induction.
Not really, I think inductive reasoning is a good thing as long as it's used well.
Deductive reasoning is too time-consuming to use in any realistic way in most cases.
Inductive reasoning can if used properly greatly speed up humanity's understanding of the world.
"I love the dirty bomb tag because i get either
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
a) posts about the game
b) current world affairs" - steel-sentry
Considering God as fact is pretty naive, considering that just as there are many scriptures that prove God, so are their many that disprove God.
If God was fact, there would be no need for faith.
And it wouldn't be a religion.
ignoring the fact that he is MrCuddowls, he is right in the aspect that evolution is a theory that's constantly been proven.
YET
evolution is not absolute. It is simply another theory of the world that has been proven more then the others, to say something is fact would be to say you not only understand everything related to the topic, but you have tested it as well.
Which no-one has.
And I doubt anyone will.
It annoys me that religious people call scientific people naive, and vice versa. Neither of you are right, and neither of you are wrong, if you weren't so simple-minded you could accept your differences and move on from them.
Bwahahahaha
Says the guy who started the *****ing (and is now continuing it) XD
Not mentioning your grammar problems: your argument is as valid as the rest of your comments in this thread are long. Don't ***** so much.
He made a couple of minor mistakes in grammar, and your going to point that out like an idiot? I haven't read enough to really care whether or not he is *****ing in previous posts but, right now, you both are.
Now stop trying to one-up each other and be quiet.
If God was fact, there would be no need for faith.
And it wouldn't be a religion.
ignoring the fact that he is MrCuddowls, he is right in the aspect that evolution is a theory that's constantly been proven.
YET
evolution is not absolute. It is simply another theory of the world that has been proven more then the others, to say something is fact would be to say you not only understand everything related to the topic, but you have tested it as well.
Which no-one has.
And I doubt anyone will.
It annoys me that religious people call scientific people naive, and vice versa. Neither of you are right, and neither of you are wrong, if you weren't so simple-minded you could accept your differences and move on from them.
Searz wrote:
Bwahahahaha
Says the guy who started the *****ing (and is now continuing it) XD
Not mentioning your grammar problems: your argument is as valid as the rest of your comments in this thread are long. Don't ***** so much.
He made a couple of minor mistakes in grammar, and your going to point that out like an idiot? I haven't read enough to really care whether or not he is *****ing in previous posts but, right now, you both are.
Now stop trying to one-up each other and be quiet.
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
Toshabi wrote:
Where does Equestria fit into all of this?
To the left.
ShiftyCake wrote:
If God was fact, there would be no need for faith.
And it wouldn't be a religion.
Again, we cannot have a reasonably intelligent discussion about religion if we're using the term "religion" as a proxy for "Protestant Christianity as it is practiced in the US".
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
To the left.
Again, we cannot have a reasonably intelligent discussion about religion if we're using the term "religion" as a proxy for "Protestant Christianity as it is practiced in the US".
Christianity IS a religion.
What is your point? how dare I talk about Christianity as if it is a religion? That would make me un-intelligent?
Just because I used it as an example, doesn't mean you can complain about it. It's no different from using an example of another religion, BUT it was the religion used from whom I replied to.
And when did I say Protestant Christianity as it is practiced in the US? Why get specific?
I really don't understand where you were going with that.
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
ShiftyCake wrote:
And when did I say Protestant Christianity as it is practiced in the US? Why get specific?
I really don't understand where you were going with that.
I got specific because that is what you were clearly talking about. You used the word "religion", but you meant something more like "mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US". My point, simply, is that we can't have a good conversation about religion when we're using the term to refer to something else.
OTGBionicArm wrote: Armored wimminz = badass.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
My posts may be long. If this bothers you, don't read them.
lifebaka wrote:
I got specific because that is what you were clearly talking about. You used the word "religion", but you meant something more like "mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US". My point, simply, is that we can't have a good conversation about religion when we're using the term to refer to something else.
Really? So I was clearly talking about that? I said God, not "mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US".
Seriously, where do you get these things. I was simply saying that God cannot be fact, so tell me.
Where is your logic coming from.
and the term religion IS referring to something else. That's its whole concept.
I don't understand you.
thanks Hogopogo for the banner :D
You need to log in before commenting.
The Problem of Induction.