Lets assume for a moment that a God is there who is resposible for making all things happen in the universe. Then:
Is the God, a natural or supernatural being? Stephen hawking referred to the 'God of order', I guess.
Which religious dogma should one follow after believing firmly in God?
Which moral system, in your opinion, is the best to follow?
................
Once you assert the existence of God, you face another disgusting flood of philosophical problems. Any permanent solution to these problems (as history tells us) is impossible to achieve. See, the flood gates are opened once again.
May be one can afford the absolute concept of God. But its impossible for every human being to afford the questions it brings, the philosophical problems it creates, the hurdles it builds up in the way of objective analysis (science), the prejudice it gives birth to and an inifinite no. of assumptions it demands to be made.
It is very easy, indeed, to criticize human knowledge and its limitations. But very hard (if not impossible) to come with right and absolute solutions to human problems.
Science, as we know it in a human sociey, is, of course, not the most objective method of studying existence. But, I feel it very comfortable and self-assuring that to assert here that SCIENCE IS THE MOST OBJECTIVE METHOD HUMANS ENJOY. ITS THE BEST WE HAVE.

What do you think? Where was I being subjective?

Yasir.

• The art of subjectivity - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 19:15 UTC
  • Harv's post translated to English - aurino - January 24, 2002 - 20:03 UTC
    • Humor or serious? - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 20:12 UTC
  • Harvey, define nature, please. - alexander - January 24, 2002 - 20:59 UTC
    • That's not what I'm saying - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:23 UTC
      • Alex, read the writing on the wall - aurino - January 24, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
        • Prove? - harvey1 - January 24, 2002 - 21:41 UTC
          • We must infer??? - doctordick - January 25, 2002 - 14:03 UTC
            • We must define??? - aurino - January 25, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
            • That's right - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:00 UTC
      • Is anything wrong with Newton's laws? - alexander - January 25, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
        • Doesn't work in QM - harvey1 - January 26, 2002 - 01:54 UTC
          • Correction. - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 00:26 UTC
        • Some issues regarding the correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:03 UTC
          • Correction - harvey1 - January 27, 2002 - 02:04 UTC
  • Correction: H-D method not H-T method (nt) - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:40 UTC