[Setekh]

*carefully phrases post* Ashrak, have you read the rules above?

[karajorma]

If you have faith why is your religion better/more correct than any other religion?

[Rictor]

nevermind, disregard.

[Col. Fishguts]

Another century old question:
Is a lightning rod on a church spire not a sign for lack of faith ?

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Setekh
*carefully phrases post* Ashrak, have you read the rules above?

/*looks at Setekh's first post*/
have you?
(same goes for Blaise Russel, and Col. Fishguts)

and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau

and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?

Yes.

[Blaise Russel]

Originally posted by Bobboau

/*looks at Setekh's first post*/
have you?
(same goes for Blaise Russel, and Col. Fishguts)

and you people don't know Alex "all answeres must be in the form of a question" Trebek?

I don't know what enforcing the 'all answers are questions' rule will accomplish, apart from adding question marks to the end of all sentences in the thread. Devolution into flames is prevented by the maturity of the participants, not by the presence of interrogatives.

[Col. Fishguts]

Originally posted by Blaise Russel


I don't know what enforcing the 'all answers are questions' rule will accomplish, apart from adding question marks to the end of all sentences in the thread....

You have to see the positive side effects. By discussing the rules, the thread is now already on the 2nd page without any flammage occuring....and this is officialy a religous duscussion thread, I remind you ! That's quite extraordinary.

And to make Bob happy I pull a Kosh-voice: 'Yes'

[karajorma]

Sure there won't be any flames. But there won't be much of a discussion. No one is answering anyones questions with any degree of conviction.

[Col. Fishguts]

I gave a serious answer in my first post in this thread, and it even had a 'No' in it ..... but somehow I seem to fail in understanding the rules completely....since I got disqualified by Bob anyway.

But are we expecting answers to a question towards which anyone can make up his own answer and no-one can 'prove' it as being wrong or right ?

[Mr. Vega]

Origionally posted by Blaise Russel
Because it is difficult to prove, inductively or deductively, a number of assumptions that we make in the going-about of our daily lives... assumptions like "we are real," "I am me," "this world is real," "everything including memories of past times weren't constructed five seconds ago," that sort of thing.

Isn't that because in order for induction/deduction to work, one must make a few basic assumptions like those?

Originally posted by Col. Fishguts
Another century old question:
Is a lightning rod on a church spire not a sign for lack of faith ?

Have you ever heard about when a town in Europe decided to store all its gunpowder in a church during a storm?

Had the ecclesiastics of the Church of San Nazaro in Brecia given in to repeated urgings to install a lightning rod, they might have averted a terrible catastrophe. The Republic of Venice had stored in the vaults of this church several thousand pounds of gunpowder. In 1767, 17 years after Franklin's discovery, no rod having been placed on the church, it was struck by lightning and the gunpowder exploded. One-sixth of the city was destroyed and over 3,000 lives were lost because the priests refused to install the "heretical rod."

[Blaise Russel]

But are we expecting answers to a question towards which anyone can make up his own answer and no-one can 'prove' it as being wrong or right ?

Well, one can discover that certain systems are less unwise. For example, faith, while undoubtedly useful, is not the best tool for finding things out about the universe or exploring ideas and concepts - science and philosophy do a better job.

Isn't that because in order for induction/deduction to work, one must make a few basic assumptions like those?

For deduction, certainly. Maybe not for induction, because you're working from the other direction - from the results towards the underlying reason. Like, "things fall down, therefore gravity," not "gravity, therefore things fall down." Though in practice one would have to assume that the world is constant, in order for induction to have any use.

[Ford Prefect]

I don't believe that philosophy is about arriving at conclusions. It's about asking questions with no answers.

[Blaise Russel]

I don't believe that philosophy is about arriving at conclusions. It's about asking questions with no answers.

So what is it exactly that philosophers produce, then?

[Rampage]

Here's mine 10-cents worth:

Didn't Einstein say, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?

Rampage

[jdjtcagle]

Yeah, but he also said

"What you call God, I call wonder..."

[Ace]

Originally posted by Setekh
Following that idea, it would require supernatural relevation for the natural to ever know the supernatural.

Or could only the natural know the natural while the supernatural only know the supernatural?

Could everything be merely natural?

[Ford Prefect]

Philosophers "produce" nothing. The philosopher simply invites people to look beyond a facade of assumptions. There is no "practical" reason for philosophy.

[vyper]

Is it not possible God is but a part of man's own psychological view of the world?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Rampage

Didn't Einstein say, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind"?

Yes. What did he mean by "lame" though? Did he mean that science by itself is unsatisfactory for finding all the answers to the world? Why would science be crippled by being unable to give the answers that faith can give? Are the answers faith gives not totally arbitrary?