Gaia wrote: sojka wrote: Istina su fakti, cinjenice. A vjera bazira na svemu vise nego faktima, mitu, istoriji, licnom vidjenju, iskustvu.
ako pogledamo unazad kroz istoriju vidjet cemo da je upravo vjera bolja sa cinjenicama, a nauka sa teorijama.
Jel' ti ovo ozbiljno?
Gaia wrote:"Following the Socratic dictum to “follow the argument wherever it leads,”Flew now claims that recent advances in science have led him to conclude that the arguments in favor of god’s existence now have the upper hand. What are these arguments?
Ko je Flew?
Doduse, nije toliko ni bitno. Dovoljno je analizirati njegovu
argumentaciju:
Gaia wrote:Probably the strongest argument influencing Flew’s conversion was derived from work in the field of genetics. The incredible complexity of the genetic code convinced Flew that it could not possibly have been the product of blind chance (as proposed by the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins). The odds of this happening are so small that the universe, as large and old as it is, would have to be gazillions of times larger and older for such an event to have occurred by chance. It was the discovery of this simple fact of mathematics and probability (originally articulated by the Israeli scientist Gerald Schroeder), I believe, that led Flew to a reexamination of other arguments in favor of god.
Uvijek se hvataju irudicibilne kompleksnosti kao jednog od najjacih argumenata, neshvatajuci i ignorirajuci akumulacioni model genskih modifikacija. Kada se navode ovi primjeri obavezno se stavlja naglasak na veoma nisku vjerovatnocu i nasumicnu sansu. Pritom se rutinski ignorisu navodi geneticara koji govore o kumulativnoj moci genskih modifikacija koji jasno stavljaju do znanja da se ne radi o nikakvoj slucajnosti. Flew svjesno obmanjuje kada navodi nasumicnu sansu jer geneticari i evolucioni biolozi uvijek ispred svega stavljaju taj kumulativni model kao kljucni. Genske modifikacije se akumuliraju milijardama godina. Jos jedna bitna stvar koju bi ja napomenuo ovom liku je da se slozeni seceri rutinski detektiraju u interstelarnim prostranstvima. I ne samo seceri nego i aminokiseline! Dakle, organske molekule su pravilo u nasem svemiru bas kao i neorganske. Nista tu nema misticno. I da, moralo se naglasiti i to da je Dawkins ateist.
Jebes akademske titule, on je ateist.
Gaia wrote:Flew was particularly impressed by the statements of Albert Einstein – and many of the other great theoretical physicists – who maintained that the laws of nature, intricate and rational, as discovered by science implied the existence of a divine mind that created those laws.
@
NIN was particularly impressed by the statements of Albert Einstein:
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
(Albert Einstein, 1954)
A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
(Albert Einstein, 9 November 1930)
I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so klix, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.
(Albert Einstein, The World as I See It)
Gaia wrote:Furthermore, he then engaged in a reexamination of the foundations of philosophy in ancient Greece – observing that Aristotle, himself, cogently argued that the existence of motion in the universe necessitated the existence of an “unmoved mover.”
...pa se uhvatio Aristotela i njegovog
unmoved movera kao jednog od neoborivih argumenata za postojanje abrahamskog boga. Mora da se ovaj Flew zajebava il' su ga malo podmazali Benjaminima.
Gaia wrote:Flew also pointed out that the very existence of something (i.e., the universe itself) rather than nothing at all is a problem calling out for a solution – and that the “god hypothesis” offers the only available, satisfactory solution. Flew now rejects, as inadequate, arguments that he once accepted such as the notion that the universe came into existence of its own accord or that the laws of physics exist in and of themselves requiring no other foundation for their being.
Flew also now accepts the argument for god’s existence based on the anthropic principle – i.e., that the laws of the universe (including many of the observed constants of physics, such as the “fine structure constant”) are uniquely fashioned to support life as we know it. The slightest deviation in these constants would have made biological life impossible.
Onda se uhvatio i antropskog nacela neshvatajuci da sam sebe pobija samim njegovim pominjanjem.
------------------------------
@Gaia, jel' ovo sega il' ti ovo ozbiljno?
Nista zlonamjerno, ali to s brojem 19. i matematikom... 
....
kakve su ovo novotarije 
da se potpisem i na ovo... 