Singapore Expats Forum
https://forum.singaporeexpats.com/
As you correctly said: 'I believe'.sundaymorningstaple wrote:
I believe religions were/are created by people, not by Dogs. Therefore, how could it be bastardized if it is, in fact, their creation?
I'm far from being a religious nut, but as we always ask religions to prove their existence . . . you seem to be quite certain of your point of view - can you prove it?JR8 wrote:Word.
Vaucluse seems to suggest there is some divine purity in a religions birth, that humans then bastardise. No, it's a crock from square one.
So, given your propensity to go all scientific . . . it is enough to state that something doesn't exist?JR8 wrote:The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.
Vaucluse wrote:So, given your propensity to go all scientific . . . it is enough to state that something doesn't exist?JR8 wrote:The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.
Hardly scientific, is it?
Lol. I think it is a not unreasonable starting point. Given there is not a scintilla of proof that it does exist.My comment was more regarding proving there is no god. As that is no more possible than proving that 9/11 was not an inside job, and say proving that Princess Diana was not killed in a plot hatched by the Duke of Edinburgh
Ok, let's assume that religion is a man-made phenomenon . . .
The alternative being?
both major religions abhor violence (let's use the new testament for the Christians here) when not directly attacked. The basic principles, call them laws if you wish, are quite good in nature.
I follow your drift, but I think there is quite a bit of evil in all holy books. You know all this 'smiting him down', and 'beating your wife lightly' etc.
How people use, or mis-use, these principles (laws, tenets, commandments etc...) is the issue here, not whether or not there is a divinity behind these beliefs
Ok. well I have to say religion just leaves me cold, so I'm not into starting a big discussion. Apologies if you felt I trod on your toes, it was a late night last night.
Oh, it does. I.e. you can prove pretty easily that there is no sine > 1.JR8 wrote:The scientific method does not allow one to prove that something does not exist.
Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easilyJR8 wrote:It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?
Ok, I will shut up now.x9200 wrote:Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easilyJR8 wrote:It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?
No I used to be into all this stuff (at uni), 'the direction of discovery', the writings of the science philosopher Carl Popper
If science can prove that the entire universe was contained in an atom, I'm sure it's easier to prove that 5 litres of milk can be contained in a litre cartonx9200 wrote:Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easilyJR8 wrote:It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?
The problem is, science if dealing with external environment (so world, universe etc) can not prove anything. It can only make something less or more probable.* There is never a guaranty that what we perceive or record using the instruments is truthful. I guess it goes along the line of Karl Popper mentioned by JR8. Science is only precise when describing models it created so who knows what is actually in this one liter container?Wind In My Hair wrote:If science can prove that the entire universe was contained in an atom, I'm sure it's easier to prove that 5 litres of milk can be contained in a litre cartonx9200 wrote:Good example but I believe you can not prove this that easilyJR8 wrote:It is rather like suggesting that one can demonstrate a litre carton of milk will never contain 5 litres. Yes, and... ?