v064kh44@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey A Schulz) (11/17/90)
There's no God, there's no Ghosts, and there's a perfectly rational
explanation for any kind of physical phenomena you might encounter.
However, there is good money to be made in television ministries.
One man's opinion,
Jeff, wasting time
when there is homework
to be done.arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (11/19/90)
In article <Nov.16.17.05.04.1990.21853@athos.rutgers.edu> v064kh44@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey A Schulz) writes: > There's no God, there's no Ghosts, and there's a perfectly rational > explanation for any kind of physical phenomena you might encounter. Two points. First, if by "rational" you mean "logical axiomatic proofs" then it has already been shown, most eloquently by Godel's incompleteness theorem, that there are "truths" of an axiomatic system which cannot be proven within that system. More simply, even in pure math truths exist which cannot be proven. Second, if by rational you mean something reasonable, in the sense that it doesn't go against anything we already know, then to many, including me, God is a perfectly rational explanation for lots of phenomena that are encountered. > However, there is good money to be made in television ministries. I think you'd starve. :-) Alex Macalalad
andrew@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Andrew Jones) (11/21/90)
In article <Nov.16.17.05.04.1990.21853@athos.rutgers.edu> v064kh44@ubvmsc.cc.buffalo.edu (Jeffrey A Schulz) writes: > > There's no God, there's no Ghosts, and there's a perfectly rational > explanation for any kind of physical phenomena you might encounter. > > However, there is good money to be made in television ministries. > There is a danger that the truth contained in the second paragraph may lead one to conclude the assertions in the first. But if a person supposes "that gain is godliness" then the Bible warns us "from such withdraw thyself". We shouldn't take any notice of them. See 1 Timothy chapter 6. Andrew Jones, Dept of Computing Maths, University of Wales College of Cardiff, PO Box 916, Cardiff, Wales, UK, CF2 4YN. Tel: +44 (0)222 874000 x 5537 Internet: andrew%computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: andrew@cf-cm.UUCP or ...!uunet!mcsun!ukc!cf-cm!andrew Janet: andrew@uk.ac.cardiff.computing-maths
sch@uunet.uu.net (Stephen C. Heath) (11/23/90)
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own and subject to change without notice. IN POSTING <Nov.16.17.05.04.1990.21853@athos.rutgers.edu> YOU WRITE: * * There's no God, there's no Ghosts, and there's a perfectly rational * explanation for any kind of physical phenomena you might encounter. * * However, there is good money to be made in television ministries. * * * One man's opinion, * Jeff, wasting time * when there is homework * to be done. And we are the only life in the universe -- right. :-( There's no scientific truth then either!!!!!!!!!!! BECAUSE -- The scientific methods is founded on two "unprovable" assumptions. 1) The laws of the universe are everywhere the same and 2) The laws of the universe have always been the same. Both declare that any "truth" arrivied at by the scientific method cannot be proved true. Mormons believe that one can become like the God of this world. That God is just one of many inteligent beings in existance and he is the creater(really organizer) of this world. One cannnot become like God on ones own; it requires God to give him a lift up. If we are found worthy, we can share with God all that he has now. Just food for thought for the one working on homework. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen C. Heath sch@unislc.UUCP sun!unislc!sch ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ KJV ] Acts 7:55-56 (55) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (56) And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the ***SON OF MAN*** standing on the right hand of ***GOD***. [ Clear enough? ] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (11/26/90)
In article <Nov.23.02.15.23.1990.20189@athos.rutgers.edu> viusys!unislc!sch@uunet.uu.net (Stephen C. Heath) writes:
#
#There's no scientific truth then either!!!!!!!!!!!
#
#BECAUSE -- The scientific methods is founded on two "unprovable"
#assumptions.
#
#1) The laws of the universe are everywhere the same and
#2) The laws of the universe have always been the same.
#
#Both declare that any "truth" arrivied at by the scientific
#method cannot be proved true.
As a scientist, I must object to these statements. The
picture they paint about science is false and misleading.
While it is true that we cannot prove that (1) and (2) are true,
it is a fact that if (1) and (2) were NOT true of our universe,
then it would be impossible to conduct science, because
we would not be able to make the correct and consistent
predictions that are at the heart of science. This would
falsify the assumption that there are universal laws.
Natural science is an inductive process, not a deductive
process. Science cannot declare that its conclusions are
true, only that they are the best explanations of the
data that are available at any given time.
Science makes no claims concerning anything that is outside of
or not part of our universe. Thus, for example, although some
scientists may claim that God does not exist, science itself
cannot make such a claim.
Bill Jefferys
--
If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file
--Robert Firthldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu (Lonnie D Harvel) (11/27/90)
In article <Nov.25.20.19.48.1990.25103@athos.rutgers.edu>, ut-emx!bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) writes: |>In article <Nov.23.02.15.23.1990.20189@athos.rutgers.edu> viusys!unislc!sch@uunet.uu.net (Stephen C. Heath) writes: |># (stuff deleted) |># |>#1) The laws of the universe are everywhere the same and |>#2) The laws of the universe have always been the same. |># |># |>As a scientist, I must object to these statements. The |>picture they paint about science is false and misleading. |>While it is true that we cannot prove that (1) and (2) are true, |>it is a fact that if (1) and (2) were NOT true of our universe, |>then it would be impossible to conduct science, because |>we would not be able to make the correct and consistent |>predictions that are at the heart of science. This would |>falsify the assumption that there are universal laws. (stuff deleted) |> --Robert Firth I believe the point to be made here is that we "know" that the above assumptions are true, within our limited parameters, but that we cannot objectively prove them. This falls in with Goedels "incompletenss" as I understand it. It is a comman mistake, as many of you are aware, for the generall public to assume that science is only based on that which can be proven. The distinction which I believe Robert is making is that as scientist we are limited to stating as fact that which we can prove. Knowing it to be true, does not constitute a proof, it must be demonstrated. Most people who believe that faith and science are contridictions have never experienced either. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The comments and spelling herein are mine and nobody else lays claim to them. ================================================================ Lonnie D. Harvel | ldh@bessel.eedsp.gatech.edu School of Electrical Engineering | Georgia Institue of Technology | "quisque suis patimur manis" Atlanta, GA 30332-0250 | Virgil