I repeat them for the same reason that if we were in a discussion about Santa Claus, I would repeat that reindeer do not fly, there is no toy factory at the North Pole, and a reindeer-driven sleigh can not visit every house in the world in the space of 24 hours--because they are relevant facts and becuse so far nobody has offered any convincing counter to them (or indeed any counter at all).
So what about it? If you think faith is superior,
Who?, what?, when? Check the transcript: "Parts i agree with and parts don't seem to pertain to me.", etc. [i.e., in reference to your attacks on faith.]
Originally Posted By: tacit
why have you not yet offered up an example of a revelation based on faith that has been demonstrated to accurately describe the physical world in a way that observation can not? If you think that faith has some other function than to describe the physical world, then how would you answer questions like what its function is and why when it does describe the physical world it gets the facts wrong, and why the faithful nevertheless use that faith as a basis for describing the world?
I keep putting the questions out there and you keep dodging them.
I do not recall, so far, any particularly compelling statements from you (or from anyone else) about what exactly the value of faith is, or why it's a good idea to believe something on faith without any supporting evidence.
Hmm, i guess you missed this reply (which i repeated twice): "i never claimed to know any of those answers (or cared one way or the other in providing them, if i did)."
Basically, you've been trying to put others into some mold where we need to account for all kinds of stuff that we don't have anything to do with... let alone agree with. Seems to be some sort of perception problem on your end, IMHO.
--
Oh well...apparently, any earnest discussion of 'unexplained scientific principles' will *not* be taking place after all. Unfortunately, you [and señor sandbag] have tanked an otherwise perfectly good thread (by means of peripheral preconceptions and assorted time-wasting platitudes). It's gone beyond boring now, and -- as indicated earlier -- that sectarian style of discourse provides a rather poor representation of the scientific viewpoint which you supposedly support. Unproductive, uninspiring prevarication. "Blinded by science" (orsomething) sounds more like it. Mondo fail.
Y'all may as well continue following thalo's lead, and establish a dedicated website... perhaps called "halo.net" (if that domain is available). Clearly there's little benefit in lounging around here any longer. Just let gravity put this thread out of its misery.
Who?, what?, when? Check the transcript: "
