Re: ?Does God exist
- From: "Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 19:47:28 -0400
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <theprof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5oml19Fn83aoU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Pmb" <someone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Al Klein" <rukbat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 11:01:05 -0700, lorad474@xxxxxx wrote:
Our level of scientific understanding has not progressed to the point
where the existence of God can be proven. Until such a
level is reached
the default position is "show me the evidence".
Since nothing can be proved in science
Really?
Yes. Really.
Do tell.
Tell ya what. You can read it all in the first chapter of a book on
classical electrons. The first chapter is short and explains how science
works and why one does not say that they have "proved" something and be
literally correct.
http://us.share.geocities.com/physics_world/ref/rohrlich_ch_01.pdf
The basic idea is that scientists observe nature, constructs a theory to
describe what he observers. Uses it to predict other things not yet observed
(ideally at least) and if what the theory predicts is actually observed then
the more trust we have in the theory. This is something every decent
scientist knows.
I don't see
We know.
[snipped childish insults]
Welcome to my kill file for such unwarranted insults. Plonk!
.
- Prev by Date: Re: electricity
- Next by Date: Re: ?Does God exist
- Previous by thread: proTECT&RAI.KI.DO oki.doki i.e. vastOK
- Next by thread: Re: ?Does God exist
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
