Educated guessing -- RSQUBF discussion forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 06:32:17 05/27/04 Thu
Author: Mike K.
Subject: Educated guessing
In reply to: Tony Lang 's message, "Religion and Science" on 01:44:58 05/27/04 Thu

I dont consider scientists to have any more special authority on the subject than say shop assistants. We would not ask a scientist to predict the winner of the forth coming European Soccer Championships in Portugal would
we?

Tony, one more comment.
It depends on who studied what.
Would you ask a cleric on the existence of God? Why?
Would you ask the trainer of the German Soccer team to predict the outcome?
Would you ask an accountant on your income tax report?
Or would you ask a shop assistant instead?

It's natural to ask people who know a bit more about the subject.
And as it just so happens to be, average scientists have delved into the question of whether God exists a BIT more than the average shop assistant. Yet, you'd prefer to ask a cleric, right? Not necessarily is the cleric's anwer better than the scientist's answer would be, and why?

So you see the problem.
It would sound very ridiculous to refuse the premise of gravity because your shop assistant found out that oil, which is heavier than water, still swims on top instead of sinking to the bottom. Your shop assistant has some proof which is easily plausible, while the scientist can only give you complicated explanations which you can't validate.

I'm trying to get that point through because that's what people without a profound knowledge quickly do in ANY area, and if you take the article "disproving the existence of mind control", well, who tells you that you're not doing exactly the same thing? What good is a "proof" that's only a cluster of assumptions which in themselves aren't validated?

In Christ,
Mike K.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Religion and Science -- Tony Lang, 08:01:01 05/27/04 Thu

Paradigm Shift -- Mike K., 09:55:19 05/27/04 Thu