Originally posted by EnochWasRight
"An axiom is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without
controversy. An axiom is defined as a mathematical statement that is accepted as being true without a mathematical proof." WIKIPEDIA
Yes? That's what I said. And you have already said/agreed yourself that Axioms are evident.
You cannot dispute axioms, otherwise they wouldn't be axioms.
Or what did you intend to say with this?
The Axiom is what science is founded on
Yes, as it is a foundation that cannot be disputed as we both agree. Otherwise we would have a problem.
..., just as religion.
No. I'm not aware of an axiom, set of axioms or anything based on axioms that would prove the existence of God.
The difference between science and religion is the same as with a woman and a man.
The difference between a woman and a man is the set of active chromosomes which lead to our physical differences, from which the rest that defines
what is typically "womanly" or "manly" will follow.
The difference between science and religion is that people all around the world, despite their background or religion, can both contribute to science
and accept it, where as in religion, even though the religious people have accepted God, "feel it" and are "in the same boat", can't agree about what
it really is and/or what is wrong or right. Not even in the same country. People on this forum alone seem to all have their completely own views. One
would think that such a strong feeling within oneself, the enlightenment, would make these people atleast agree with each-other. But they do not - in
contrary to science.
That, is the difference.
The man refuses to acknowledge the woman is correct.
Yes, I can relate to such a macho culture in interactions between man & woman. I fail to see what that has to do with science & religion.
Love is were we make progress.
In relationships? In science? Between scientists? Or in loving religion?
But in science, the love for thought experiments, experiments, education and things of that nature is what makes progress. If we try to remain on
topic.
The woman already loves the man.
Who is this woman, why is she so submissive, and why are we talking about her?
This is why the woman is right.
.... I just can't comment on this.
Reason lacks perspective from bias.
Aha! You seem to have misunderstood something important.
You should be aware that reason does not belong in science.
Reason is a great tool in order to speculate and to try find solutions, but you cannot dictate how the nature works, as it can be as unreasonable as
it wants to be. Quantum mechanics is a good example.
So, the human's ability to reason is what we need to think of new ideas, but "it's reasonable to assume that" does not belong in science as facts.
They can be used as "placeholders", but they are not true until verified.
Religion embraces science.
First of all, you being religious should be the first to know that this varies greatly depending on who you ask. Some are not even allowed to use
technology which is a must in this day and age to proceed studying many fields. Again, you are talking about specific versions of religion which again
demonstrates thiat religion is not based on any axioms, as religion goes any direction the person carrying it wishes.
However, I have no problem regardless of if religion embraces science or not. It does not matter to me, nor does it matter to science.
Science uses religion as its fundamental source as its genesis.
This is as false as it can be. Could you please explain how you came up with that conclusion?
Science does not care about religion as long as it's not a part of it.
Example, someone states that there is an earth-quake every time God sneezes. Clearly, there is no evidence of this, nor is there a way to verify this.
Then we find out that the continental plates are moving and causes these shakes. The apparent question then might be "why do they move?", the easy
explanation someone comes up with is that God obviously uses Earth as a "stress-ball", so, by gently squeezing on earth, it moves the plates around.
Again, since we can't even know that God exists, we look elsewhere.
The Holy Spirit is what science denies.
Wrong. Science cannot deny things it can't verify. As long as it cannot be looked at, it's not interesting. It's quite logical. Otherwise it would
only be pure speculation, like religion.
Also, don't confuse scientists with science.
There are scientists that believe in God, and those who do not, and everything in between.
It is only logical that a lot of scientists are not religious, as they are used to confirm things only when they can be confirmed.
Personally, I don't deny God. For the same reason that I nor science can say whether Jenna Jameson is God or not.
She is the mother in the Trinity.
It is fascinating that the holy spirit is even put into a family-tree. What about its' mother & father?
But I would, for starters, be satisfied if you proved the existence of the holy spirit. It would make the rest a bit easier.
edit on 13-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Consequence because: I don't like
this computer very much.
