Jump to: Board index
April 11th, 2012, 1:13 am
April 11th, 2012, 12:28 am
Some actions are compulsive and will disregard logic and reason, or genetically caused why it isn't always fair to say it's selfish.RJG wrote:We are all selfish, some are just more obvious than others.
April 10th, 2012, 10:13 pm
April 10th, 2012, 10:05 pm
Science usually prove their points beyond reasonable doubt with evidence, religion just postulates this and that without evidence, the groupthink, sheeple, naive and simpleminded ..etc, will be swayed by what relates to their inner selfish desires.Eveready wrote:Why is it that those pertaining to love logic and the scientific method especially math, allow math to call an equation infinite and can call the big bang infinite years [millions] of evolving [which is a theory not evidence] yet can`t allow others from theistic reasoning to allude to a god of infinity?
What makes math or scientific evolutionaryn infinity theory more acceptable than the theistic infinity called their god?
The answer to this question from both atheists claiming science is theirs and theists would be welcome.
April 10th, 2012, 10:02 pm
April 10th, 2012, 9:32 pm
I would say both, one can do philosophy about the future, that's extremely importaint for the survival of buisnesses in our industrialized world, to stay competettive.Belinda wrote:Is this thread supposed to be philosophy or futurology?
April 10th, 2012, 6:09 pm
April 10th, 2012, 5:52 pm
Looking at statistics it will eventually. If we will follow Moore's Law 1k years from now, it would be very strange if not.Stevenct56 wrote:As I've said earlier, computers have a very narrow and mechanical consciousness now and it'll continue to expand. However, it will be highly unlikely that it can match the complex and dynamic ocean of the human minds.
April 10th, 2012, 3:01 pm
April 10th, 2012, 12:02 pm
April 10th, 2012, 11:50 am
April 10th, 2012, 9:07 am
You put it in a very excellent way Xris, a way much better than I can ever do with my primitive lingual skills.Xris wrote:It is unscientific to impose an unproven god onto the subject. You approach it from a point of dogmatic certainty but will ignore any scientific evidence as irrelevant if it opposes your core beliefs. You either accept science and the proof of evolution or you start a thread in the religous forum. We might find it insulting for you to ignore any well proven scientific fact that counters your fundamentalist beliefs. You do not believe we originated from apes even though the overwhelming scientific community never doubts this absolute fact. You are not intent in finding the truth only securing some kind of credence to the biblical account of creation. There are scientists who are also Christians and they manage to believe in both evolution and creation but you are not one of them Fanman. The truth will set you free.
April 10th, 2012, 8:18 am
April 10th, 2012, 7:28 am
April 10th, 2012, 6:18 am
Science 99.9999% right vs Philosophy 0.00001% right.Spectrum wrote:Are you aware that scientific truths are merely conjecturals (Popper), albeit polished conjecturals awaiting further polishing and refinements. Even it is very useful, there are a lot of limitations in Science per-se. Science is done by fallible human beings. Philosophy studies these limitations and discusses how to move further and improve beyond the current limitation. Science cannot cure itself of its accepted limitations, but philosophy can assist.