God science debate
Now there will be some who say that a trillion universes is more demanding than a single universe with its one creator.
I don't want to sound like some kind of simplistic idiot just thinking you can blame it all on religion.
Religion vs science group discussion
If you look at intellectual movements, academic movements, what the hell does it mean to be politically correct? Again and again you hear about these so-called terrorist organizations providing services for their people. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science. Are his premises false? Why is it OK for scientists to say that skepticism is the default position, except when it comes to mainstream religion? I was just reading a poem by Elizabeth Bishop about death, and it made me cry. Science is, in a sense, a self-consistent way of looking at the world, and in that sense it gets its authority. They thought that religions were good on an intermediate scale, in providing services for their own members, but religions were a problem when you thought about the larger social unit. That's the god of science, to understand "natural reality. Include all this other stuff that no one talks about. The problem is that it's no longer sufficient to be a vague believer in religion. If science fails to deliver this side of the grave, then by all means turn to religion. But the world as a whole is becoming more religious, more fundamentalist. Since then, "Science has made a whole bunch of discoveries, but they point in the opposite direction," D'Souza said. Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality.
I didn't know this until I started to learn about religion myself, but the afterlife figured much less in Judaism than in Christianity. If science fails to deliver this side of the grave, then by all means turn to religion.
How do we get to this great stabilizer that will prevent people from damaging society?
Or it might have been adaptive in the ancestral environment, in the Stone Age, but is no longer adaptive in the present; as is true with our eating habits, for example.
Science cannot be justified by the scientific method. Secondly, though, he says you could have many parallel universes.
Does god exist
To say that you will never comprehend this explanation annihilates the fact that it is an explanation. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up and thus you would have a new effect arise from an eternal cause. When focusing on explanation, the question is what explains the sum total of all facts? She wasn't asking me to take anything on faith. There is a god, the argument runs, therefore there must be a purpose in his creation of the world. No one knows how space-time came into being a-causally, but there are hints. Notice that I intend to confront issues, not evade them.
You know these feelings far better than I because you obviously believe in them. From what we know of mammalian genetics, can that be possible?
based on 86 review