Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
" God & Science Forum Message " The Browser Window Reads

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by M.W.Pearson on February 3, 2002 06:43:04 UTC


Then, at least, can you tell me which point seems feebler of the following two, and why?:

1) seems a great disorder in the
"God and Science" forum if we choose not
to spend serious and major rigor exploring
the very definitions
of the terms "God" and "Science."
A strongly logical standard of argument could
make this a less futile endeavor (even factoring
in the need for serendipity and intuition and
freedom).

2) If everyone has their own definition, they need only stipulate that definition for what htey are saying. And how carefully they define the term gives an idea how useful their statement is. After all, prose has verbs and these are all "doing" or "being" words. The doing words describe action which is quantified precisely...how precisely may vary. The being words are quantified and essentially are equal signs.

An algebraic equation can exist with a placeholder for the unknown, but most times we are seeing the term God used as both an undefined known quantity and an undefined unknown quantity at the same time. In other words, the equation/sentence says nothing...is mush.
If God is defined as supernatural, one must define supernatural. At some point, equations must enter or it is all mush.

My use of the term God came from the dictionary, and I used the one most accessible to testing and evaluation... practically no divinity needed at all. I would accept an ultimte God can exist,
and have been satisfied with definitions which are approximated in the example story of Jesus.
Krishna seems a little overly endowed to be a good manager, though I understand he's beloved.

Yanniru showed evidence that God is weak and when he was opposed, he left the forum. It seems a concidence, any way. If God is weak what does weak mean? However, Yanniru made me think some more...and I still have more thinking to do about that. What do we mean by weak. Sick? Not mature yet? Of bad morals, hence depleted? Far away, so the signal attenuates? Old and decrepit?
I think God is like a calculus book. Most people can hurt you with it because it can be used to deliver blunt trauma. But also in calculus and similar levels of rigor are the possibilities of managing our life and times so much better it would seem a paradise. Did anyone read this far?
signal at least by someone saying nt, at least?
Thank you.
Warm,

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins