| [ Christian ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): bulchul ( 마시마로) 날 짜 (Date): 2001년 12월 4일 화요일 오전 01시 13분 41초 제 목(Title): Re: Extension of logic toward belief > You asked me example and I gave you one: > Scientists believing Unified Theory. --------------------------------------------------- Can you name 'who'? Scientist 'believing' in a 'theory'? So, you haven't done the 'defining' homework yet, did you? Can you differentiate between a Christian 'believing' in God, and a scientist (I'm just saying it. Be careful with it.) 'believing' in a scientific theory? Do you consider the two the same? If I'm not mistaken, there is still research goiong on over that matter, and maybe, maybe some of them are devoted researchers with some serious conviction. Can you call them the UT faithful? (Last time I checked, Brian Greene was a strong proponent of GUT, but I don't ever recall him 'believing' in that thing, especially the way pastors and preachers believe in God and Jesus and Miracles and all that craps - he never mentioned so in my class if my memory serves me well.) *Boy. I'm living in a different world, maybe.* ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Why didn't you reply to me about that only saying I believe in > somthing oxymoron? ---------------------------------------------------------------- Say what? ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Those scientists are believing illogically? > > They are just logical? ---------------------------------------------------------------- If they 'believe' as you claim, without any evidence or ground, YES they are illogical. (I'm sorry to point this out, but I'm having some real hard time actually 'understanding' what you want to tell me. Run-on sentences are not a good way of writing, if you didn't know before.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > If you say yes, you mean they have evidence of existance of the UT > because if they don't have, they cannot think logically that it > exists. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- First, I don't understand what your question is. The answer is YES, They are ILLOGICAL. Do I mean they have evidence? Damned if I know. They may have their ground, however weak, unsubstantiated or feeble it may as well be. Now, say WHAT? To my understanding, we don't still have any conclusive evidence for GUT as of yet. (Or maybe I've been out of school for too long. Pardon my ignorance.) This means that, a. I stand corrected, b. any scientist-as-he-claims is going to be bogus at best if he 'believes' in the GUT. As you have said time and again, belief is 'free' from logic, right? What does that mean? He won't need to question why it is true, or why it is false - he can just believe it. Is that logical? or scientific? Hardly, won't you agree? We all have seen what results come from a research that has its destination set at the inception throughout the whole history of science during the Christiandom. *It's been distorted, persecuted and killed in some occasions, to suit the religious need.* Or if there is a conclusive evidence to GUT, then maybe that 'belief' thing isn't necessary after all. *In all cases, I stand corrected.* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > At some point, that's just believing based on the logical consequence. > they belive it without evidence, also without conflict to their logic. > > If you think it conflicts, what logic conflict to their belief? > > Just show me. > > If not I'll call you trickster. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Do what you will - like I'm going to care or what. Whatever I've presented makes more sense than whatever hocus-pocus the Bible had to offer. It's just you that doesn't agree. (heh) /)/) (_ _) _(` ')_ *난 시그 싫어... 투덜투덜... * |