Moontanman Posted August 20, 2013 Posted August 20, 2013 I apologize for insulting StarWars, I do kinda like the original trilogy more than startrek, but I'm on the fence with both of them after all the damn remakes. Originals are good. Don't apologize to those star wars apologists... Star Trek is much better.... I was referring to "the force" as being god. As an example of a non livening thing that does all the stuff a traditional god would be credited for doing. Just food for thought, there was a thread about, the definition of god, and I don't really have a definition for god, it's like that quantum physics stuff, it's there but it's not, it's up and down at the same time, god could be anything, or nothing, so I don't know how to argue any real points about something we don't know. It's like arguing about what a blank hole looks like... Human eyes cannot see black holes, it's a hole, it's the lack of things to see, In fact if you looked at empty space, you'd see more, because a black holes isn't just empty, it's less than empty, it's negative. But at its center it is Infinitely dense. If my argument still makes sense to you, you must be smoking something awesome! But that's why I compare god to such things as black holes and the Big Bang, massive phantom forces like "the force" from StarWars, that appear to come from nothing, like a god. You cannot argue about whether those forces exist. So what are people really arguing? I've never heard someone say god is or isn't a black hole or claim that "he" is the force that dropped the apple on Newton's head. I suppose you can argue that black holes don't exist. After all, it's only a theory, but you can't say god didn't or did have anything to do with it. It's like arguing about a glass that is filled precisely at the half mark, if it is half empty or half full. It could be either one. What other info can you bring to the table to change the balance? Before I post anymore, I'm going to give you a break to light your pipe, and contemplate wtf I just wrote. Cuz I'm making these examples up as I go along. This thread started out as pure horse feathers and went down hill from there as for half full vs half empty, I'm a realist... 1
Didymus Posted August 22, 2013 Posted August 22, 2013 How to post on a forum 101: this is not an infomercial.... Don't spend an entire page prefacing how great this article is and vaguely making claim after claim about what the article proves. Spend maybe 2 paragraphs with a basic premise to demonstrate the value of the rest of the thread.... Then expand as necessary. Coming off as an advertisement makes you look bad.
Bill Angel Posted August 28, 2013 Posted August 28, 2013 Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. A miracle is supposed to be an event that can only be explained via the direct intercession of a god. If such an event can shown to be facilitated by quantum tunneling, then such an event would no longer need be characterized as a miracle. For example the explosion of an atomic bomb would appear quite miraculous to someone ignorant of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. But once those fields of physics can be shown to supply an explanation for how an atomic bomb works, then the need to attribute such an explosion to a miracle vanishes. 2
Iota Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 Don't apologize to those star wars apologists... Star Trek is much better.... Star Trek is equally as good, this is acceptable. Miracles are also physically allowed via electroweak quantum tunneling controlled by the Omega Point cosmological singularity. Phrase it as technically as you'd like, but it's still wrong.
WWLabRat Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 (edited) See my previous reply to you above. The above statements which you quoted from my article follow directly from the known laws of physics. ... See in particular Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12 ff. of my aforecited article "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything". I really want to reply to this thread, but my fingers are hurting after scrolling through the same post half a dozen times. I will be back later for this. Until then, please, provide us with multiple sources, reviews, etc. so that we may evaluate without it being preached. In the meantime, I will leave you with a wonderful quote to convey our frustrations with your lack of actual responses: Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -Albert Einstein EDIT: Removed filler material Edited August 29, 2013 by WWLabRat
elementcollector1 Posted August 29, 2013 Posted August 29, 2013 This topic is fascinatingly dull. The OP says "proven by the known laws of physics" over and over again, as though that validates everything. The 'known' laws of physics are not the 'definite' laws of physics, in the sense that they haven't been irrefutably proven - there are several exceptions to what we consider the 'known' laws. Take the ether of the late 20th century - everyone was damn sure it existed, and spent countless experiments trying to find it. They didn't. Until you start providing real science instead of claiming that your pseudoscience is supported by "the known laws of physics", we'll have to dismiss you as another soapbox preacher. (Hint: the current scientific model focuses on disproving or finding exceptions to a theory, instead of proving it.)
James Redford Posted October 18, 2013 Author Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) Not even physics is capable of providing evidence for a piece of pure fiction which completely contradicts all of its fundamental components. I'm amazes me that you've managed to make such a big post attempting to argue otherwise; you need to use your time far more wisely in the future. The title is misleading, be more careful in future. Hi, Iota. The Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity theory is a mathematical theorem if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are correct. As Prof. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].) Further, due to Liouville's Theorem in complex analysis, it doesn't matter what form of physics one resorts to, as any physically-realistic cosmology (e.g., one capable of incorporating Quantum Mechanics, since the complex number field is intrinsic to the mathematical formulations of Quantum Mechanics) must begin at an initial singularity and end at a final singularity. (As Barrow and Tipler wrote, "Initial and final cosmological curvature singularities are required to avoid a universal action singularity." See John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, "Action principles in nature", Nature, Vol. 331, No. 6151 [Jan. 7, 1988], pp. 31-34; see also Frank J. Tipler, "The Structure of the Classical Cosmological Singularity", in Origin and Early History of the Universe: Proceedings of the 26th Liège International Astrophyscial Colloquium, July 1-4, 1986 [Cointe-Ougree, Belgium: Universite de Liege, Institut d'Astrophysique, 1987], pp. 339-359; "Discussion", pp. 360-361.) For much more on the foregoing, see my following article and the resource below it: James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf In the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos. James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://megashares.com/index.php?d01=uJQGTK1 Edited October 18, 2013 by James Redford -1
iNow Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Has anyone else noticed the Gish Gallop that is taking place here? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop 2
James Redford Posted October 18, 2013 Author Posted October 18, 2013 (edited) A miracle is supposed to be an event that can only be explained via the direct intercession of a god. If such an event can shown to be facilitated by quantum tunneling, then such an event would no longer need be characterized as a miracle. For example the explosion of an atomic bomb would appear quite miraculous to someone ignorant of nuclear physics and quantum mechanics. But once those fields of physics can be shown to supply an explanation for how an atomic bomb works, then the need to attribute such an explosion to a miracle vanishes. Hi, Bill Angel. Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events which are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning miracles [The City of God, Book 21, Ch. 8], "" For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature. "" That is, traditional Christian theology has maintained that if we had the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain how God's existence and His miracles are possible [cf. Romans 1:19,20; The Summa Theologica, 1st Part, Question 2, Arts. 2-3]. According to the known laws of physics, we now have that ultimate physical law, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, and so we are now able to explain God's existence and His miracles. Within the Omega Point cosmology, miracles are physically allowed via the Principle of Least Action, as the universe is logically forced by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity, and so any event which is required in order for this evolutionary process to occur is certain to occur. Thus, a miracle within the known laws of physics is an event which is so improbable that it can only be rationally explained due to the end-state that said physical laws require the universe evolve to. The English word miracle etymologically means "object of wonder" [John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989)]. The Old Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Hebrew [James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1890)]: oth (tw'), "sign", "token"; mopheth (tpwm|), "sign", "wonder"; and pala ('lp|), "marvelous", "wondrous". The New Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Greek [op. cit.]: dunamis (dÔnamij), "power", "mighty work"; semeion (shmeØon), "sign"; and teras (tèraj), "wonder". So the meaning of these words in their Biblical context has nothing to do with violating natural law. Edited October 18, 2013 by James Redford
Moontanman Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 Hi, Bill Angel. Traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law--rather, they are events which are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning miracles [The City of God, Book 21, Ch. 8], "" For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature. "" That is, traditional Christian theology has maintained that if we had the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain how God's existence and His miracles are possible [cf. Romans 1:19,20; The Summa Theologica, 1st Part, Question 2, Arts. 2-3]. According to the known laws of physics, we now have that ultimate physical law, the Omega Point/Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, and so we are now able to explain God's existence and His miracles. Within the Omega Point cosmology, miracles are physically allowed via the Principle of Least Action, as the universe is logically forced by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity, and so any event which is required in order for this evolutionary process to occur is certain to occur. Thus, a miracle within the known laws of physics is an event which is so improbable that it can only be rationally explained due to the end-state that said physical laws require the universe evolve to. The English word miracle etymologically means "object of wonder" [John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989)]. The Old Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Hebrew [James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1890)]: oth (tw'), "sign", "token"; mopheth (tpwm|), "sign", "wonder"; and pala ('lp|), "marvelous", "wondrous". The New Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Greek [op. cit.]: dunamis (dÔnamij), "power", "mighty work"; semeion (shmeØon), "sign"; and teras (tèraj), "wonder". So the meaning of these words in their Biblical context has nothing to do with violating natural law. So turning water into wine or walking on water can be explained by physics? I know you want to believe this stuff but it has been shown over and over here that you are making claims that cannot be backed up and some such as it has not been refuted are plainly wrong... Has anyone else noticed the Gish Gallop that is taking place here? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop I have seen the strategy a great many times, this thread in particular but i didn't know it had a name...
James Redford Posted October 18, 2013 Author Posted October 18, 2013 So turning water into wine or walking on water can be explained by physics? I know you want to believe this stuff but it has been shown over and over here that you are making claims that cannot be backed up and some such as it has not been refuted are plainly wrong... Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy. If the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament were necessary in order to lead to the formation of the Omega Point--and if the known laws of physics are correct--then the probability of these events occurring is certain. Furthermore, Tipler proposes tests on particular relics associated with Jesus which, if the relics are genuine, could verify whether in fact said miracles took place via the aforementioned mechanisms. Prof. Tipler does not claim that the miracles surrounding Jesus Christ are proven by physics to have taken place, but rather merely that they are perfectly allowed by the known laws of physics. However, God's existence is now a mathematical theorem per the know laws of physics. For much more on that, see my below article, which details Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708; PDF, 1741424 bytes, MD5: 8f7b21ee1e236fc2fbb22b4ee4bbd4cb. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 , http://archive.org/details/ThePhysicsOfGodAndTheQuantumGravityTheoryOfEverything , http://theophysics.host56.com/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf , http://alphaomegapoint.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/redford-physics-of-god.pdf , http://sites.google.com/site/physicotheism/home/Redford-Physics-of-God.pdf Further, in the below resource are six sections which contain very informative videos of physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler explaining the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE). The seventh section therein contains an audio interview of Tipler. A number of these videos are not otherwise online. I also provide some helpful notes and commentary for some of these videos. James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , 30 Jul 2013 00:51:55 -0400. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo , http://archive.is/a04w9 , http://webcitation.org/6IUTAMEyS The plain text of this post is available at: TXT, 42423 bytes, MD5: b199e867e42d54b2b8bf6adcb4127761. http://mirrorcreator.com/files/JCFTZSS8/ , http://ziddu.com/download/22782349/ , http://megashares.com/index.php?d01=uJQGTK1 -2
Endy0816 Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 The Omega Point theory is not widely accepted as being true in the first place... 1
Moontanman Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 So far it looks like special pleading wrapped in horse feathers... This is nothing but horse feathers... Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics. The process which Prof. Frank J. Tipler proposes for the miracles of Jesus Christ uses baryon annihilation (which is allowed in the Standard Model, as baryon number minus lepton number, B - L, is conserved), and its inverse, by way of electroweak quantum tunneling caused via the Principle of Least Action by the physical requirement that the Omega Point final cosmological singularity exists. Tipler also proposes that the virgin birth of Jesus by Mary could be possible via Jesus being a special type of XX male who obtained all of his genetic material from Mary (i.e., an instance of parthenogenesis). Tipler concludes that the Star of Bethlehem was either a Type Ic hypernova located in the Andromeda Galaxy, or a Type Ia supernova located in a globular cluster of our own Milky Way Galaxy.
John Cuthber Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 "Jesus being a special type of XX male" i.e. a girl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98cE4QCrlk "Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics." probably sort of true, but the gamma radiation from the transformations would have fried everybody present. 1
Phi for All Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 ! Moderator Note James Redford, linking to your own articles to support your own suppositions is nothing more than soapboxing, which is against our rules. It's also quite obvious you're being less than honest in your "bombardment" approach to evidence. Nothing you've cited lives up to your claim of "proof" in the title, and most of your references are blatant proselytizing. Sorry to the rest of the membership that we haven't already placed a warning in this thread. If this "Gish Gallup" approach continues, the thread will be closed. 3
WWLabRat Posted October 18, 2013 Posted October 18, 2013 "Jesus being a special type of XX male" i.e. a girl. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x98cE4QCrlk "Turning water into wine is perfectly allowed within the known laws of physics." probably sort of true, but the gamma radiation from the transformations would have fried everybody present. Not to mention I think they lacked sufficient technology to complete these conversions in BC or early AD
Moontanman Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Not to mention I think they lacked sufficient technology to complete these conversions in BC or early AD Have to believe we are magic... Nothing can stand in our way...
Endy0816 Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 On the flip side scientists are developing a method to turn female bone marrow into sperm. It will only be a matter of time until we have a whole generation of little messiahs running around. I honestly don't doubt that some recorded events had a real world cause. A fair bit of evidence for that. Sodom and Gomorrah, Red Sea, Flood, etc. My issue comes when people attempt to explain all miracles away in the same fashion. If they were all caused by natural phenomenon then they need to be repeatable. If they are repeatable, they aren't miracles. Leave God some kind of gaps.
WWLabRat Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 (edited) One example of something that's repeatable is Jesus walking on water. He could easily have been walking on the Dead Sea which has such a high concentration of salt that people float on top. Miracles are nothing more than phenomena that don't yet have a scientific explanation. Edited October 19, 2013 by WWLabRat
Endy0816 Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt? You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible. Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility. I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will.
Moontanman Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 One example of something that's repeatable is Jesus walking on water. He could easily have been walking on the Dead Sea which has such a high concentration of salt that people float on top. Miracles are nothing more than phenomena that don't yet have a scientific explanation. It was the Sea of Galilee not the Dead Sea and the Dead Sea is not even close to being that salty in fact i would suggest that no water could be that salty... On the flip side scientists are developing a method to turn female bone marrow into sperm. It will only be a matter of time until we have a whole generation of little messiahs running around. I honestly don't doubt that some recorded events had a real world cause. A fair bit of evidence for that. Sodom and Gomorrah, Red Sea, Flood, etc. My issue comes when people attempt to explain all miracles away in the same fashion. If they were all caused by natural phenomenon then they need to be repeatable. If they are repeatable, they aren't miracles. Leave God some kind of gaps. Would you care to cite some of that evidence for those things i have put in bold print?
WWLabRat Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Division of the loaves and fishes? Pillars of salt? You could debate whether they were speaking literally or not, but you could make that same point about any of the assorted miracles in the Bible. Some of the geological and medical miracles maybe. Some of those explanations make "Goddidit" start to look reasonable, but I'll allow the possibility. I just think it violates some essential human element attempting to explain everything away. If you can explain every miracle you deny yourself a degree of freedom. I figure I'll find out(or not) in due time. My own random thoughts on the matter, feel free to believe what you will. How do you lose a degree of freedom when discovering that a miracle can occur and be repeatable through scientific observation? Also, isn't it mostly in human nature to be curious about the world around you? To want to know all there is to know? Being able to explain away phenomena seems essential to the human condition. Moontanman, my mistake. It's been quite some time since I've read the bible and thought that the distance between the two seas was closer than 65 miles. Going off that, I was under the impression that it would have been possible for them to mistake one sea for the other. At the same time though, if he had been at the Dead Sea, although it would be impossible to walk on it barefoot or even in sandals, it would be plausible if he had some way to displace his weight and therefore his center of gravity... Just a thought... On another note, in reference to Endy0816's comment on female bone marrow being converted to sperm... I'm sure there's an easier way for a woman to still be a virgin but become impregnated without divine intervention. However, for the sake of keeping this thread PG, I'll neglect to mention it here.
John Cuthber Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 There are at least two reasons why this line of debate isn't going anywhere. Firstly, there is no real evidence for miracles. Secondly, if there were a God who created the universe then He created the laws of physics and would presumably be in a position to suspend them as and when He wanted so there's no reason to think that a God-given miracle should follow those laws. 1
Endy0816 Posted October 19, 2013 Posted October 19, 2013 Would you care to cite some of that evidence for those things i have put in bold print? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Historicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity Red Sea was something to the effect of an earthquake causing a tidal wave to form. As the wave moved up the Red Sea the water drained out before it. Moses was able to cross, Pharaoh pursuing was caught directly in its path. Not the best quality evidence but reasonably plausible or I wouldn't have mentioned it. How do you lose a degree of freedom when discovering that a miracle can occur and be repeatable through scientific observation? Also, isn't it mostly in human nature to be curious about the world around you? To want to know all there is to know? Being able to explain away phenomena seems essential to the human condition. You would end up with only facts though. Freedom to believe or disbelieve is dependent on having something you can't explain.
Recommended Posts