Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Disable your ad blocker to continue using our website.
thedoc wrote:One view is that God set the universe in motion, from galaxies to microbes and quantum particles. If you step in the way of a falling rock, you are going to get hurt, and did God do it? Yes, but as part of the whole construction of the Universe. Those who look to blame God everytime they stub their toe on a rock are just being very stupid. The rock was there it's up to you to look where you are going. Stop looking at heaven to take care of you, God gave you the brains to take care of yourself.
Stupid? What evidence is there that even your Deist version is any better.
God answers nothing whatever- it only adds more questions.
There is no evidence, religion does not deal in evidence only belief. If you want evidence as proof you are in the wrong place, you need to be in math or science. In religion the question often is the answer.
No, you are in the wrong place - this is Philosophy Now - the clues sort of in the name. Philosophy unpacks belief and questions the basis of evidence, and how it leads to belief.
If you think you can beleive what you like without evidence then you really need to look elsewhere.
Most of what people believe they know, is done so without direct evidence. Scientists make discoveries and report those findings, and since I do not have the time or resources to verify all knowledge that has come down through history, I accept most and only occasionally verify something, just for fun.
thedoc wrote:Most of what people believe they know, is done so without direct evidence.
How do you think this is relevant to the discussion?
Scientists make discoveries and report those findings, and since I do not have the time or resources to verify all knowledge that has come down through history, I accept most and only occasionally verify something, just for fun.
Great but you also know that there are reasons why that sort of knowledge is more valid from stuff offered to you without any evidence or method at all; religion. That does not mean that they are on the same playing field.
thedoc wrote:Just what are the limits of Philosophy, what can we talk about, and what do you think we should not talk about?
That's a huge question, as there is no limits to the things we can talk about- it is more to do with the type of conversation we have about those things.
But the statement'"
There is no evidence, religion does not deal in evidence only belief. If you want evidence as proof you are in the wrong place, you need to be in math or science. In religion the question often is the answer."
is just way out of line.
Religion does not get away with that sort of balony, in discussions of philosophy
chaz wyman wrote:
We've all seen punks like you on this Forum, they come and go, full of hot air and much noise. They type and type but signify nothing.
Chaz .. bloody brilliant.
And you even slipped in some shakespear.
Well done boy.
I don't think Chaz is "young", though I forgot where he mentioned his age. A random guess is late thirties or somewhere between forties or early fifties. That's not young, unless you yourself is relatively much older.
The Voice of Time wrote:I don't think Chaz is "young", though I forgot where he mentioned his age. A random guess is late thirties or somewhere between forties or early fifties. That's not young, unless you yourself is relatively much older.
Well, Prill and I are both somewhat beyond that in age, we are both granfathers, and often share impressions on brands of walkers.
