you are a complete troll. how many times are you going to lie about science. 1. You want me to give a list of all the scientists who state our universe appears to have fine tunings again. <iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/mlD-CJPGt1A?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> 2. Denying a creator when you see a complex creation and no other proven explanation is religion. Any rational being realizes that since science has no proof life evolved from non life and that some scientists state there was no way life evolved from non life hear on earth... the burden of proof would rest on the one making the outlandish claim that it happened by random chance.
I have seen it in every church, bible study group....anything having to do with the interpretation of the bible.
and the same thing with technical analysis, markets best soccer players, presidents and even things which should be objective such as have revenues gone up after tax cuts. Ask liberals about that last one and you get all sorts of bullshit.
Actually, I was going to post that very thing, sans the liberals. You post only illustrates that like these man make things, the bible, while having great advice in it, is merely another man made object. Nothing divine about it.
This is the kind of statement I have no problem with. I get aggravated when trolls mis represent science. Whether the the new testament is inspired by God is a question of faith, as far as I know. I have no problem with you saying no it is not inspired by God.
You must get aggravated with yourself an awful lot. The burden of proof rests on you, the one claiming a (scientific) random chance claim is being made. The claim as much as there is one, is of inevitable consequences, not particular random chance. Random chance is your determined wilful misrepresentation of that.
Do you imagine a thinking mind or a critical mind could be either when heavily influenced by the fancy, make believe and superstition called religion.
yes because they are human and will always have the enormous capacity for self delusion which is innate to a human For example people believe in diversity even though there is no evidence it works. 'Smart' people think economic egalitarianism is swell idea even though all the evidence is front of us says that human abilities lie along a gaussian-type distribution.
Ricter's proposition was in connection with science or scientism where evidence is always being confirmed and yet is still under some form of scrutiny. Not political philosophy and economics, where it's true, delusion is often allowed to stand for evidence. It's surely the thinking mind or the critical mind that is going to identify self-delusion and where human abilities would really lie. It seems unreasonable in the extreme to suggest otherwise.
The problem is tautological. Reason, i.e. the "critical mind", is manmade. "Existence precedes essence." The scientific worldview constructs one type of ring and tells the world, "this is the only ring all of us are going to fight in." Again, I'm not arguing for the abandonment of rationality, only putting it in its place--it's a choice.