Science vs. Faith

[_bcspace]

This certainly applied to me as a Mormon.

Not the Mormon Church I know of.

[_mfbukowski]

How did you decide science was important to you?

For me, reliable, repeatable results, accessible to anyone.

Interesting.

Why are repeatable results important to you?

So you have a problem with ambiguity? I suppose you are not an artist. Do you like poetry? How do you evaluate it?

And you get repeatable results in deciding what is important in your life through observation?

How do you observe yourself?

How does one make observations to decide if abortion is wrong or not? How do you observe that it is wrong to discriminate against other races?

[_mfbukowski]

Hey MFB,

Good to see you. :)

Hope all is well with you and yours.

Miss many of you over at the MDDB.

Peace,
Ceeboo

Hey dude- Good to see you too- all is well, hope all is well with you and yours!

[_moksha]

... for we are Legion ... don't you remember?

Ave Caesar.

[_Nightlion]

...
Science selects a much more difficult solution for an explanation of creation proving that they have no spine....

It is spineless to decide to seek for a more difficult explanation?

Odd.

It is the oft quoted maxim you call Occam's (Ockham's) razor, no? We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.
And besides all that, he has told us as much, so come on now, get real, stop the lies.

[_beefcalf]

We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.

You are exactly correct.

Of course this same pattern has inevitably made the God I believe in far, far more intelligent than your god. In fact, the God I imagine (who takes the form of a three-legged mushroom with Faberge eggs for eyes) has for one of his boogers your imaginary god, such is the relative greatness of his intellect compare to your god's intellect.

Or something like that. Anyway.... good point.

[_Nightlion]

We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.

You are exactly correct.

.... good point.

Corrected so as to eschew obfuscation!

[_Chap]

How did you decide science was important to you?

For me, reliable, repeatable results, accessible to anyone.

Interesting.

Why are repeatable results important to you?....

Well, I suppose it was just this naïve wish to have medicines that will make people better, to have airplanes that won't fall out of the sky, to be able to launch satellites that run GPS systems so we know where we are, to know how big the universe is, how old it is, what we are made of, how we can feed the earth's growing population if the world gets warmer ... just trivial little things like that.

[_Chap]

...
Science selects a much more difficult solution for an explanation of creation proving that they have no spine....

It is spineless to decide to seek for a more difficult explanation?

Odd.

It is the oft quoted maxim you call Occam's (Ockham's) razor, no? We observe that intelligence naturally exist one greater than another. Therefore the existence of God is predicted by the data. And hence God is the most simple solution to creation.
And besides all that, he has told us as much, so come on now, get real, stop the lies.

In order to prove your point, you need this propositions to be true:

"If we observe N entities (1,2,3 .. N) with some property X, and X1<X2< ... <XN, then there will always exist an entity (N+1), such that X(N+1)>XN".

That is not Occam's Razor, but is instead a creation of Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham. What is more, it is easy to show that the proposition on which you rely is false.

For suppose that the entities (1, 2, 3 ...) are the novels of Jane Austen, which can be arranged in order of length if we want to (instead of order of date of writing). Then leaving aside juvenilia, there are just six novels in the sequence, with the second longer than the first ... and eventually the sixth longer than the fifth.

But (alas) there is no seventh novel longer than the sixth. She just didn't write one. So your principle is not generally true, and there is no reason to think that it applies to 'intelligences' any more than it does to novels.

[_Buffalo]

This certainly applied to me as a Mormon.

Not the Mormon Church I know of.

Your brand of Mormonism has exactly one adherent.