Fw: Faith and Physics

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Walker" <wincowalker@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.sci.physics
Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: Faith and Physics

> I submit that though logic and evidence are the most important things for
> our own faith that is the 'Faith of our Scientific Community'
> our ability to perceive evidence is limited [i.e.. 'Human ability' is
> limited].
>
> Like Thomas did believe only after touching the wounds of Jesus which
> strengthened him enough to come to India and die as a martyr.
> But it is impossible for me to enter the spaces and corridors of an atom
or
> things which are light years away for my physical inspection.
> I being a person who always want proof sometimes perforce have to settle
for
> plausible explanations.
>
> One need not just get swayed by big names like Einstein and Newton and
> blindly follow every theory proposed. For, the truth is not even
half-known.
>
> Neither the strong faith [mistaken] such as the one that denied the truth
> found by Copernicus is right.
> But, Faith is certainly a great strength for Human Beings which can only
be
> felt by those who have it. Just like the taste of the apple which is known
> only to the one who eats it.
>
> Thomas walker
>
> "andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
> news:jpcEg.6032$yG1.3279@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
> > "Mike" wrote:
> > > Your only evidence for this "hypothesis" seems to be disbelief in the
> > > miraculous. What I am suggesting is a scientific explanation for
> > > improbable events.
> >
> > My disbelief is "evidence" for my hypothesis? Moving right on...
> >
> > I have very low confidence in the veracity of anecdotal evidence of
> > violations of the laws of nature, especially when that evidence dates
back
> > to a pre-scientific era in which the belief in such violations was
> > widespread. I have very high confidence in the human propensity to
> > confabulate stories in support of an ideological agenda, especially when
> > such stories are unconstrained by the sort of rational thinking demanded
> by
> > the scientific enterprise. Any empirical evidence of miracles should be
> > demonstrable and repeatable, and so available for objective
investigation,
> > whereupon our descriptions of the operations of nature would have to be
> > modified. Such would be the search for a scientific explanation of
> > improbable events. The fact that no such events can be objectively
> > demonstrated reveals an ideological agenda rather than a scientific
> > investigation.
> >
> >
> >
>
>