AND THE FOOL CONFOUNDS THE WISE*

SOMe more..fOR YOUR EDIFICATION/read education
LETS TEST YA STRING THEORY THEORY?

<<.. You are probably aware of the intense interest in theoretical physics in finding a quantum theory of gravity, a marriage between quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GTR), the two great theoretical advances of the twentieth century. Of the approaches to this challenge, string theory is the most prominent.

*However, as Dawid explains (chapter one), this enterprise is (apparently*) different from previous revolutions, because it is not driven by empirical anomalies,>>..

IE ITS ALL SPECULATION
NO SCIENCE FALSIFICATION..EXCEPT BY Fl*AWED MATH
ie see..[eternity =1/12..THREAD..thats an insult..to ANY reasoning man
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6217&page=0

anyhow..quote..''<<..*nor is it..well-controlled by experiments, because characteristic processes..typically occur in situations>>>

where fact is lacking
or IN-ABILITY to replicate..IE IN theory8[LOL]
OR WHAT IF PRESUMPTION/FEIGNING SCIENCE/ABILITY TO REPLICATE [as the koran..SAYS..'TO MAKE JUST ONE LIKE IT'.

<<..(for instance involving huge amounts of energy) that are far from any experimentally*..*accessible regime. lol..(What motivates the enterprise in the absence of anomalies are the remarkable successes of QM and GTR, coupled with the fact that there are situations in which both apply.)

LOL

<<..And yet, even without narrow empirical constraints,[IE REALITY/] string theorists are confident*..lol..that they are on the right track. Why? The aesthetics of the mathematics is one answer given (e.g., Greene 1999).

LOL

<<..Self-deceptive 'groupthink' >>

OH LORD FORGIVE THEM..THEY KNOW NOT What they do/say..reply.[the blind leading the blind comes to mind]

come oN PERICULES..your better than these decievers?

..SELF DECETIVE GROUPTHINK..LOL..<<..is another (e.g., Smolin 2006). The purpose of Dawid's book is to describe and defend a methodology between these optimistic and cynical extremes>>.

YEAH..LOL
PLEASE NAME NAMES..or stop saying we got nuthin
you got nuthin..but dumb and dumber think you do

evolution..is a godfree/mirage
you live in hOPE OR FEAR..but he is all loving all living all light[in strings/think like ball lightening]..all grace all mercy..all logic

ps trav..thanks for a great link

I don't think it's that we "know of different of fundamentalists", Trav.

<<It sounds like you and I know or know of different fundamentalists!>>

I suspect you may just have an unusual idea of what a fundamentalist is. I define a fundamentalist as the dictionaries do (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Afundamentalism&oq=define%3Afundamental&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j69i58j69i59l2.7122j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8); that being a theist who takes a literal interpretation of their holy book, i.e. someone who rejects evolution and believes that the Israelites were once slaves of the Egyptians, and other such scientifically and historically and debunked ideas like the Exodus.

So going by the definition of "fundamentalist" that most of us go by, it makes little sense to claim that a fundamentalist - who believes that God played such a hands-on role in the creation of the universe and answers these prayers you mention - would "create a divide between the workings of God and the workings of the world". Remember, too, that fundamentalists, by definition, stick strictly to the theology - contradictions 'n' all. It is in fact "sophisticated" Christians who stray from it, and often for the reason that I mentioned. Two of OLO's contributing authors, Sells and Crabsy, are good examples of this type of Christian. To some of these "sophisticated" Christians, the Bible is just a collection of fables and poetry and largely irrelevant to the theology they have invented for themselves, yet still manage to refer to as "Christian" while attending church every Sunday.

<<Seems like we have a different idea of faith too.>>

It seems we do. Once again, I go by the dictionary definition (http://www.google.com.au/search?q=define%3Afaith&oq=define%3Afaith&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2684j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8). And so do many other Christians apparently, as I pointed out earlier.

[It would be much more conducive to productive discussion if you could demonstrate why the examples I provide, in support of my arguments, are not valid before simply ploughing on to repeat the same claim.]

<<...for me, my own faith and belief in God and Christianity encourages me to think.>>

Continued...

...Continued

About what exactly? I'm not sure we're on the same page anymore (this is a good example of why it's counterproductive for you to ignore the support I provide for what I say). Of course a religious belief is not going to stop one thinking about *everything*. It won't even stop them thinking about the theology of their faith. What it will do, however, is limit the scope of their inquiry and stop them thinking when the most plausible and rational conclusion is too uncomfortable to draw. As you had demonstrated earlier.

That being said, your 'literacy' and 'universities' examples are irrelevant to what I'm saying.

<<...faith should be seen as trust, as opposed to “blind faith” and it should be supported by some degree of evidence.>>

If it were supported any relaible evidence at all, then it would not be referred to as a "faith".

It's interesting that theists will alternate between the first two definitions of faith that I linked to, when it suits them.

The correct context for 'faith' is apparently fine when speaking disparagingly about an atheist's lack of belief ("You have a faith too"); protecting their own beliefs from criticism ("But it's my faith!"); or running out of arguments for God's existence ("Well, you just gotta have faith").

But as soon as it's pointed out that faith is - by definition - blind, then suddenly it's just about trust. Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Theists refer to their belief using an adjective that describes it, not by the trust they put in the god that is the subject of that belief.

<<My idea of evidence is a broader one than the narrow view adhered to by many people.>>

The problem with this being, of course, that if you broaden your idea of what constitutes evidence beyond that which is demonstrably reliable (e.g. including 'personal revelation' when only evidence and reasoned argument based on logical absolutes has so far proven itself to be the only reliable pathway to truth), then you will inevitably hold some false beliefs or some true beliefs for bad reasons.

Trav,

>> are you suggesting we dispense with the concepts of evidence and proof altogether because they are too ambiguous <<

Concepts like evidence, proof, truth, existence, reality, faith etc are ambiguous when used in an abstract (philosophical) context - hence in discussions one should be careful using them until all sides can agree on their meaning, if that is possible at all.

No such ambiguity when used in everyday language: Horses exist and there is plenty of "evidence" to prove the truth of this statement. Unicorns don’t exist because we all have the same idea of a unicorn and we all agree that such a creature does not exist. In the philosophy of science, of religion, metaphysics etc things are not that simple.

[In particular, one thing is to talk about the existence of UFOs, Russell’s teapot or Dawkins’ Ultimate Boeing 747, concepts that make sense only as belonging to physical reality, another thing to assume the existence of a divine realm related to both the mental and physical but reducible to neither of them. An important contribution to philosophy and history is built around the latter, but not around any of the former. I think this is what Platinga has in mind when talking about a-teapotism.]

I have suggested one way of distinguishing between proof, evidence and argument-for, that I see as more or less universal. In this language e.g. Aquinas’ “proofs” (of God’s existence) would only be arguments convincing to some not convincing to others. Or when Jesus said “I am the Truth” He certainly did not have in mind the Boolean algebra of truth values.

So yes, debaters who cannot agree on the meaning of these abstract terms should treat them carefully as ambiguous.

forget words meaning
put the word in context
who is saying what to who?

if im speaking for god/*/then im accountAble TO GOD
whether..I BELIEVE..in a true god..or a false god..
or regardless of what..YOU..the hearer thinks god to be.

in law..god is supreme..thus he is*..final judge
as much as..non believers may deny..it

aj/quoted..<<..If it were supported any reliable evidence at all, then it would not be referred to as a "faith".

It's interesting that..theists will alternate..between the first two definitions of faith..that I linked to,..when it suits them.......>>..LOL

if you got faith..in jesus or aj phylips..its faith..
but question the clever guys..that say..*they got more..we find faiths..IN SCIENCE/evolution

that..isnt science*[THATS THE LIE..THAT MADE FAith..in science god]..ie faithlessness*

evolution..isnt science
you been deceived..by thosE..them-SELF DECEIVED

VALIDATE EVOLUTION..any..of you?

REVEAL JUST one..*science evolution into new genus
name name..oh ye faith in deceivers..YOU HAVE FAITH*IN SCIENCE..[FULL STOP]

OR PRESENT YOUR SCIENCE/gnosis=knowing

<<..The correct context..for 'faith' is apparently fine
when speaking disparagingly..lol..about an atheist's lack of belief ("You have a faith too");..

so do you aj
be honest with thyself mate
or reveal the science..you dont..you ONLY GOD FAITH/TOO

<<.. protecting..lol..their own beliefs from criticism..("But it's my faith!"); or running out of arguments..for God's existence..("Well, you just gotta have faith")...

prove your science*!*

yOU CLAIM fact..claim science..present it*!*

<<..But as soon as it's pointed out..lol..that faith is - by definition - blind,>>

the blind blunder..into their next faith/lessness
if you cant PROVE THESIS..ITS NOT SCIENCE..*[ITS FAITH]

<,.. then suddenly..it's just about trust.>>

AHH GREAT POINT..WHO YOU GOING TO TRUST
in the last seconds..of your life?

the science..that slow killed you/deceived you
sickend/you..or him*..who sustained you..your every breath..?

<<.. Sorry, but that doesn't wash...Theists refer to their belief using an adjective..that describes it,..>>

GIVE PROOF..OF THESIS..PLEASE

<<..not by the trust..they put in the god
that is the subject of that belief.>>

I FEEL SAFER TRUSTING
THE GOOD..GRACEFULL/LIVING LOVING GOD..MORE
more*..THAN ANY Or all of you./.[FULLSTOP]

:}

id say..you trust him to0..more
over trusting me..CORRECT?

misare

lo guys im not sayiNG YOUR IGNOrant
im simplY SAYing..if you know it you could explain it to a questioner

perhaps if you listen to michael..explaining that the billion dollar smashing macHINE..is only to find a 'god particle'..called the higgs BOSUM..

that the theory of relitivity [E =mc2]..proves somehow the big bang
by being a super blackhole..couldnt ever escape the blackhole[unless reality is suspended ever so briefly..by a higgs boson[so the theory goes[and none of you 'science types cared to explain

there is more to it..but spirit really thinks its pearl before swine
some hints=THINK OF A BLACK HOLE AS A PROCESS OF 0SMOSIS..AND EQuilibrium/PLUS MOMENTUM..into change of state..that inverts INTO THE NEXT REALITY[WITH A FLASH AND A BANG.

its that simple[except that TIME CHANGES as space changes and the inversION..IS TOTALY OUT OF TIME[ETERNAL]..TILL GOD GRASPS her next beath..AND BEATHES OUT THE MANNA FOR THE NEXT LOT OF GODHEADS[YOU]

anyhow name first life/genus..you dont know do you
but worse you dont care do you

the only thing you really hope[believe]..have faith in is no god because your too SELF OBSESSED[DECEIVED]..to look for his sign

life love logic grace mercy
light SUSTAINING LIFE..that life seek like
after the balance[in the pre big bang darkness]

i wish you science faithful at least would give info
fundamentalists ARE DYING TO INFORM YOU..but fundamentally all ya got is faith..[trUST]..LOL..NO FACTS MAAAM..I WILL TAKE IT ON FAith..causE I dont grasp the concept or the math.

bah*
silence..indicates true shamed ignorance
yet the biased opinion indicates passion..but sadly no fact