Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can science say anything about a Creator God?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 181 of 506 (695134)
04-03-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by NoNukes
04-03-2013 8:29 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
I think you are confusing two types of scenarios. Imagine a 10,000,000 card deck with 3 jokers in it, where a full house with jokers represents a life bearing universe.
It might well be true that every particular five card hand we deal is rare. But we have to get some hand, so we should not consider getting a particular hand (like getting me given humans) to be indicative of design. But getting a joker based full house is a rare hand in a quite different way. The probability of getting that hand in a single deal is impossibly low. It is low enough that we should be looking for an explanation for why it turned up.
Why is the life universe the full house with jokers? What are the other 9,999,997 cards? Why is a life universe a special hand? Isn't it rather subjective of us, as life forms, to decide that a life universe is special?
NoNukes writes:
The error is in assuming that the explanation must be design and not assuming that an explanation of some type is necessary. And that's what I think was missing from your argument.
In my (hypothetical) one world scenario where there are many equally possible worlds and only a tiny fraction would have life, there's nothing to explain. The explanation is the same as the explanation of why Mrs Vivant won the winner takes all lottery, and no-one else did. It's only a mystery if you decide Mrs. Vivant is somehow special.
That doesn't, of course, mean that it isn't worth looking for an explanation because my scenario is hypothetical, and it could be that there are unknown constraints on what kind of world can form, or that there are infinitely many worlds, making this one inevitable etc.
Are you sure you're not making the mistake of thinking that, because there are far more possible non-Mrs. Vivant results for the lottery than Mrs. Vivant results, that we need to explain her good fortune?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 8:29 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 11:44 AM bluegenes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 506 (695137)
04-03-2013 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by bluegenes
04-03-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Why is the life universe the full house with jokers? What are the other 9,999,997 cards? Why is a life universe a special hand? Isn't it rather subjective of us, as life forms, to decide that a life universe is special?
Not because life is special, but because out of the spectrum of possible values for fundamental constants, most values do not result in a universe with life.
Are you sure you're not making the mistake of thinking that, because there are far more possible non-Mrs. Vivant results for the lottery than Mrs. Vivant results, that we need to explain her good fortune?
No. There is nothing to explain when there are low odds, but millions of attempts to win, and where we don't care about the specific winner. But low odds, with only one attempt to win is a different matter and does need some 'splaining. I'd suggest that the rationale given on Dr. Adequate's post works pretty well.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 11:09 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 12:07 PM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 183 of 506 (695141)
04-03-2013 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
04-03-2013 11:44 AM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
Not because life is special, but because out of the spectrum of possible values for fundamental constants, most values do not result in a universe with life.
Or any other precisely defined universe. Most possiblities do not include Mrs. Vivant winning the lottery.
NoNukes writes:
No. There is nothing to explain when there are low odds, but millions of attempts to win, and where we don't care about the specific winner. But low odds, with only one attempt to win is a different matter does need some 'splaining.
No other attempts to win the lottery in that analogy would be the equivalent of no other possible worlds but this one in a one world scenario.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 11:44 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 12:52 PM bluegenes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 506 (695144)
04-03-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by bluegenes
04-03-2013 12:07 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
No other attempts to win the lottery in that analogy would be the equivalent of no other possible worlds but this one in a one world scenario
With one attempt to win the lottery, we should expect that no person would win.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 12:07 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 2:08 PM NoNukes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 185 of 506 (695146)
04-03-2013 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by NoNukes
04-03-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
NoNukes writes:
With one attempt to win the lottery, we should expect that no person would win.
But in that analogy, "attempts" in the lottery are analogous to "possible universes". If there's only one possible one, it must be this one, and my hypothetical scenario (and that of the creationists) would be wrong. That hypothetical scenario was that there were lots of possible worlds, but only one that exists.
Try a different analogy. You have a massive deck of a trillion cards, with each card unique. You pick out one. It's the 43,132,753,819 of diamonds. It's a 999,999,999,999 to one chance against this result. Does the result require some kind of special explanation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by NoNukes, posted 04-03-2013 12:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2013 12:45 AM bluegenes has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 186 of 506 (695147)
04-03-2013 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
03-25-2013 10:39 PM


Oops, posted to wrong thread.
Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 03-25-2013 10:39 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 187 of 506 (695155)
04-03-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Son Goku
04-02-2013 3:21 PM


Virtual Particles
I just wanted to say that the reality of virtual particles is a bit of a thorny issue, but for scientific as opposed to philosophical reasons.
To cut an extremely long story short, a quantum field is a physical system which, like any other, can be in a variety of different states. The most interesting of these states are what are commonly known as particles, which are essentially (i.e. ignoring quantum mechanical issues) small bundles of mass and energy.
However a quantum field can also be in a state that cannot be understood as a collection of particles. These states are extremely difficult to deal with, however they are quite common. If you collide an electron and a positron (both states of the electron field) with each other, then the electron field and the electromagnetic field it interacts with, enter into one of these non-particle states. However after a while the fields settle down into a particle like state, a state of two photons. So:
[Electron + Positron] => [Extremely complex field state] => [Two photons].
(I'm ignoring quantum mechanics here, since the final particle states are usually a superposition of [Two photons] and [Electron + Positron] at the same time.)
This equations which deal with this time evolution are far too complicated for us to actually solve. However they become much simpler if you make the initial state and the final state to be infinitely far apart in time, an idealisation known as scattering theory.
The main point is that it turns out that all the complicated details and physics of the intermediate field states, the ones that cannot be interpreted as particles, can be completely ignored and replaced with the physics of the transmission of energy conservation violating virtual particles.
These virtual particles are not real, in the sense that the theory does not predict they actually exist. Rather they are a more convenient way of encoding the dynamics of the intermediate non-particle states. This trick only works in the idealisation of infinite time separation between the initial and final states. Otherwise you would have to deal with the non-particle states directly.
In case the idealisation of infinite period of separation seems unrealistic, a typical time period for particle physics is a Yoctosecond, so on these time scales the milli/centiseconds it takes for particle physics experiments are quite close to the infinite time limit.
Most calculations in Quantum Field Theory are scattering theory ones. Although I should point out that over the last two decades we've found that even in the infinite time approximation ignoring the non-particle states completely can lead to errors, as not all non-particle states can be approximated using fictitious virtual particles even in the infinite time limit.
Examples would be certain states related to quantum tunneling, as discussed above, these states being known as Instantons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Son Goku, posted 04-02-2013 3:21 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 188 of 506 (695229)
04-03-2013 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Percy
03-30-2013 9:36 PM


Hi Percy
How do you tell the difference between a single universe with physical constants specifically chosen for life on Earth, and a zillion universes each with random constants of which the one we occupy happens to have physical constants just perfect for life on Earth?
This is a common thought among many people. The problem, of course, is that the multiverse is not, in the normal sense, a scientific hypothesis. In order for an hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable. The multiverse can never be observed and it cannot be falsified.
See Paul Davies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Percy, posted 03-30-2013 9:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 04-04-2013 9:08 AM designtheorist has not replied
 Message 212 by Taq, posted 04-04-2013 11:02 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 189 of 506 (695230)
04-03-2013 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
03-30-2013 10:01 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Correction. Multiple universes is one of the possible explanations for why the universe is fine tuned that have been offered and not countered by designtheorist.
See Message 188 above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 03-30-2013 10:01 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by NoNukes, posted 04-04-2013 12:53 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 190 of 506 (695231)
04-03-2013 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Blue Jay
03-30-2013 10:32 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? After all, you didn't do your own thinking on this: you read a book that someone else wrote, and decided that you liked his ideas, so you latched on to them. Maybe you thought about them a bit on your own, but only after they were presented to you. But, for some reason, you believe we won't grasp it unless we do all our thinking before you present Ross's ideas to us.
I have attempted to think scientifically about certain aspects of the issue such as fine-tuning. I read widely. I have quoted Roger Penrose, Paul Davies and others on the topic. My question is this: "Is there really any appetite here for scientific consideration of these issues? Or, are people here just to attempt to advance their own agenda?"
For my part, I hope it is clear that I want to learn from others and that I want my thinking challenged and sharpened. I'm not picking that vibe up from the commenters here so far. I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable.
I'm a biologist. I have just completed my 8-9 years of training in biology, and I know the subject well enough that I am confident in my ability to "do my own thinking" and come up with my own predictions in a lot of areas of biology. If you want to talk about design hypotheses in biology, I'm your man.
Well, that's great to know. I understand the cosmology much better than the biology side so I hope to learn from you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Blue Jay, posted 03-30-2013 10:32 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by Blue Jay, posted 04-04-2013 12:50 AM designtheorist has replied
 Message 200 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2013 1:46 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 191 of 506 (695233)
04-04-2013 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Dr Adequate
03-31-2013 1:34 AM


Hi Dr. Adequate
Regarding physicists speaking on fine-tuning as having the appearance of design, you asked:
Can you quote them saying this?
Yes. Yes, I can. The first series of quotes are from scientists specializing in physics, cosmology and mathematics who I believe are atheists. I might be wrong about a few of them, but I know I'm right about most. I could have included many more but I have to draw the line somewhere. I tried to avoid quotes regarding fine-tuning in biology and chemistry as much as possible to focus on fine-tuning in the cosmos.
Next, follows a series of quotes from Christians in physics, cosmology and mathematics. Again, this is just a select few.
Quotes from atheists
The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the creator and governor of the realm of matter. — James Hopwood Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, (1931) page 137.
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." - Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist)
"Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." - George Ellis (British astrophysicist)
"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". - Paul Davies (British astrophysicist)
"The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". - Paul Davies
"I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, an accident of history, an incidental blip." - Paul Davies
Most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe . . & entirely compatible with science. Freeman Dyson (Dyson is not using the term "intelligent design" here as referring to the "Intelligent Design" movement. Do not consider this quote an endorsement of ID)
how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values. - Steven Weinberg
(Nobel Laureate in High Energy Physics, writing in the journal Scientific American)
As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit? - George Greenstein (astronomer) Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27
"I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." - Roger Penrose (mathematician and author)
"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." - Tony Rothman (physicist)
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." - Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic)
"There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing." - George Smoot
"The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated." - George Smoot
"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God — the design argument of Paley — updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." — Edward (Ted) Harrison (cosmologist)
Quotes from Christians
(Sandage and Tipler were atheists but became Christians, at least in part, because of their cosmology)
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." - Alan Sandage (winner of the Crafoord Prize in Astronomy)
"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural." - Allan Sandage, astronomer May 9, 1996
"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." - Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics)
"The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." - Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist)
"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it." - Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician)
"As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God]." - Edward Milne (British cosmologist)
"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." - Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists)
Regarding Stenger, you ask:
Are these real things he's actually said, or things that creationists have made up?
Those are things he wrote, paraphrased of course. I read his book titled Fallacy of Fine-tuning, or more accurately I read half of it. The book was so bad I could not finish it. The book is rubbish. Stenger feels fine-tuning does give the appearance of design or he would not try to argue the universe is not fine-tuned. Such an argument would be fine if he had any evidence to support it. But when you read his book, you see he does not. He is passingly familiar with some of the arguments but shows clearly he is not able to grasp them, or perhaps more accurately is unwilling to grasp the arguments. You know the old saying "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Stenger is a classic example of willful ignorance when it comes to fine-tuning.
After your performance on this and other threads, no-one can believe a word you say about what scientists think. Your persistent misrepresentations of their thoughts --- I shall not speculate whether through stupidity or malice --- is one of the most consistent features of your posts.
Please don't flatter me. Try to stick with proving my comments true or untrue.
Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-31-2013 1:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2013 1:10 AM designtheorist has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 192 of 506 (695234)
04-04-2013 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by JonF
03-31-2013 7:30 AM


Hi JonF
That's an unsupported assertion. I asked for a reference or proof.
Wikipedia is useful here
The important thing to remember is that a vacuum fluctuation needs a field. But we know time and space came into existence at the Big Bang. I'm sure you see the problem.
But again, even if we could prove space existed before the Big Bang, a naturalistic cause for the Big Bang would be expected to result in a high entropy universe. I refer you back to Roger Penrose to explain that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by JonF, posted 03-31-2013 7:30 AM JonF has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 506 (695235)
04-04-2013 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by bluegenes
04-03-2013 2:08 PM


Re: Fine tuning is a prediction of naturalism.
Try a different analogy. You have a massive deck of a trillion cards, with each card unique. You pick out one. It's the 43,132,753,819 of diamonds
You have a massive deck with a trillion red cards and two blue cards. You pick out 5 cards at random and get two blue cards. Do you suspect a problem?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by bluegenes, posted 04-03-2013 2:08 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by bluegenes, posted 04-04-2013 3:57 AM NoNukes has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 194 of 506 (695236)
04-04-2013 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by designtheorist
04-03-2013 10:50 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
Hi, DT.
Perhaps I've been a little too irritable toward you on this thread, and I'm sorry for that. However, I am irritated with the way you seem to reason entirely n false dichotomies and false correlations. Like this here:
designtheorist writes:
My question is this: "Is there really any appetite here for scientific consideration of these issues? Or, are people here just to attempt to advance their own agenda?"
So, the only two possibilities are (1) be willing to consider intelligent design or (2) advance an anti-ID agenda?
There are a lot of hypotheses that science has rejected in the past. Does intellectual honesty require that we be equally willing to consider phlogiston theory, the geocentric model, spontaneous generation, and the classical elements, as well?
designtheorist writes:
For my part, I hope it is clear that I want to learn from others and that I want my thinking challenged and sharpened.
To put it bluntly, it is not clear that you want your thinking challenged.
On your last thread, you stated that you wanted to debate a certain set of points, but, throughout the discussion, you continually reiterated your position without directly engaging any of the arguments we made against that position.
On this thread, you ask what would make us consider a hypothesis based on Intelligent Design. You haven't presented us any specific hypothesis that we could evaluate, so we can't give you any clear answers as to what evidence would convince us of its veracity. You have also stated that one's willingness to consider ID is directly correlated with one's intellectual honesty.
designtheorist writes:
I'm not sensing any intellectual integrity or willingness to confront evidence that may be uncomfortable.
What you're sensing is irritation. You can't judge our willingness to confront evidence for a hypothesis when you haven't even told us what the hypothesis is!

-Blue Jay, Ph.D.*
*Yeah, it's real
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by designtheorist, posted 04-03-2013 10:50 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by designtheorist, posted 04-04-2013 1:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 506 (695237)
04-04-2013 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by designtheorist
04-03-2013 10:43 PM


Re: Hi Blue Jay
See Message 188 above.
In message 188 you dismiss the introduction of multiverses because it is an unfalsifiable, and thus non-scientific hypothesis. If this is sufficient, then et's just dismiss all of the non-falsifiable, non-scientific hypotheses from the discussion.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by designtheorist, posted 04-03-2013 10:43 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024