patrick.net

Greatest I am says

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

Our culture is a form of moral relativism. It is not surprising that we consider things most people do, innately or not, as "moral."

Besides, we cannot fully take moral responsibility if we do not set the initial conditions.

We not not totally "free" to make moral decisions because we react to "decisions" made by others.

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

Who's definition? Science does not agree.

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

It has, I agree, but that is no reason to believe everything religion says. If it's not proven by science, it should not be believed.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Science is a methodology. And as a methodology, no one has yet to find a fault with the scientific method. It is a self-correcting mechanism and has done more to advance understanding and reveal truth than any other human endeavor including and especially religion.

Science has cured diseases, gotten us to the moon, explained the cosmos and life itself, practically eliminated stillborn and childbirth deaths, increased food production a thousand fold, and improved the quality and length of life. We all have much to be grateful to science for.

The difference between the priest and the scientist can be summed up like this. The scientist learns from his mistakes and corrects them. The priest kills anyone who points out his mistakes and then turns his mistakes into dogma.

Thank You science......

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=wo_t5#/video/world/2013/01/04/pkg-chance-uk-safer-world.cnn

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

Insistence of using science as the only source of truth is a dogma not dissimilar to any religion. Scientism is a religion.

Dan8267 says

And as a methodology, no one has yet to find a fault with the scientific method. It is a self-correcting mechanism and has done more to advance understanding and reveal truth than any other human endeavor including and especially religion.

Science is as political as religion. It is self-correcting only if its participants are willing.

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Raw says

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Partly science. Partly speculation. The most important knowledge is the limitations of your knowledge.

Peter P says

Raw says

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

So where do you get your knowledge from?

Partly science. Partly speculation. The most important knowledge is the limitations of your knowledge.

Science is more reliable than speculation. Speculation in this context would be sheer guess work.
When your child is seriously sick you are not gonna rely on speculation, but a good doctor who knows exactly what to do.
We all rely on science, because we can count on science even though it is not always right.

That's the thing. Competitive edges rarely come from generally accepted knowledge. They come from successful speculation.

Almost all successful people have been great artists of some sort.

Peter P says

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

E = mc^2

Science has never proved anything, my ass.

Peter P says

Science is as political as religion. It is self-correcting only if its participants are willing.

Science is the exact opposite of politics. It knows no cultural, geographic, racial, or class boundaries. Claiming that it does is just plain wrong.

As for any person who refuses to accept empirical evidence that a theory is incorrect or incomplete is not taken seriously in the scientific community. Theories cannot contradict observations, and experiments must be repeatable to be accepted. Let's apply that to religion. Unless Jesus can walk on water again in front of us, we're not going to accept that he did it.

Peter P says

Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery.

Your knowledge of history is as abysmal as your knowledge of science. History is full of scientific revolutions that completely shock the scientific community, but are quickly accepted because of the evidence. People used to believe that the Earth was the center of the universe, but today we don't believe there is even a center at all. People used to think the universe was static and eternal, whereas we measured it's age as 13.75 billion years. People used to think that gravity was slowing the expansion of the universe. Much to everyone's surprise, in 1998 we discovered through evidence and observation that the universe's expansion is accelerating.

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

Dan8267 says

Your statement, Science is also inherently ignorant because it can only create knowledge that fits inside its system of knowledge discovery is empirically false. It's amazing you could actually believe something so clearly and demonstrably wrong.

I probably misspoke. But my statement was actually a tautology. All system of knowledge can only create knowledge that fits inside their systems.

So it was clearly and demonstrably correct. Just meaningless. :-)

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

JodyChunder says

Greatest I am says

Have you ever forgiven someone?

Honestly, never -- but my threshold for what constitutes a transgression is probably higher than most folk's. I measure my life in grudges. There have been times in my life when the only thing that made me want to get out of bed was revenging someone.

Jody, I forgive you.

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

As applied to genetics?

Moderate Infidel says

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

very true

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Peter P says

Moderate Infidel says

As applied to genetics?

Genetics is overrated. I rather watch Gymnastics.

Yes!

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

Bap33 says

Moderate Infidel says

JodyChunder says

Peter P says

Guys, what is your take on the concept of divine grace?

I am for it.

I'll take some too.

I'm counting on it

You can have mine.

Okay, rejecting grace can't be rational can it?

This is now beyond existence.

Peter P says

Okay, rejecting grace can't be rational can it?

This is now beyond existence.

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?
Shouldn't he should be spending his time giving divine grace to the billion starving babies?
The real fact is, divine grace, like God and religion came from man's imagination.

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

Peter P says

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

thunderlips11 says

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious
backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you
to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

dont forget, his coming was fortold. That was a kinda new twist to things.

thunderlips11 says

Peter P says

Raw says

If God exists he has plans to torture me till eternity. Why would I trust or want anything from someone with such a motive?

Do you even understand what grace means?

"IF you believe in my Jewish Carpenter Zombie who lived in a rebellious backwater of the Roman Empire 2000 years ago, based on heresay, I won't send you to burn and suffer eternally in hell."

I thought grace is simply doing something beautiful without being required to do so.

In a religious-agnostic way, divine grace is simply grace performed by a willful God.

Is it necessary that God be willful?

Peter P says

All system of knowledge can only create knowledge that fits inside their systems.

Actually, that's neither a tautology nor true. The tautology you are aiming for is A system of knowledge can only incorporate knowledge that fits within itself. A system, in general, could of course produce knowledge that doesn't fit within the original system's bounds by creating a revised system. Science does this all the time. Example: The Theory of Relativity subsumes Newton's Theory of Gravity as a limiting case.

Fine. You win. :-)

It's not about winning. It's about clarifying.

Peter P says

Greatest I am says

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards

DL

Ever heard of infinite regression?

Yes.

Now deal with my question and do not just try to sidestep it.

Regards
DL