[MD] Quantum Physics

[David M]

Hi Dan

Dan said: Ummmm Errrrrr

DM: Well at least you didn't dismiss my
suggestions out of hand! I ask for no more.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Glover" <daneglover at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics


> Hello everyone
> 
>>From: "David M" <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk>
>>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>>Subject: Re: [MD] Quantum Physics
>>Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 19:24:55 -0000
>>
>>Hi Dan
>>
>>Is there any reason why religion should not
>>embrace falsification?
> 
> I think the question should be: is there any reason why religion SHOULD 
> embrace falsification? And the answer is:
> 
>>
>>Whenever someone claims the authority of
>>revelation I suggest that they also need
>>to check out what has been revealed by
>>science. Why stick with old revelation
>>and ignore more up to date revelation,
>>or do they think god is no longer undertaking
>>revelations?
> 
> Ummm...
> 
>>And if one revelation contradicts
>>another, maybe the current stuff is what we
>>are currently up to receiving and is an improvement
>>on revelations designed for ancient societies
>>and cultures.
> 
> Errr...
> 
>>
>>Can't beat a bit of rhetoric can you?
> 
> Why would I want to?
> 
>>
>>Ofcourse, you can just drop the whole
>>revelation concept.
> 
> I trust you mean the editorial "you" as I didn't bring it up.
> 
>>
>>Mind you,what if someone came up with a theory
>>of everything that worked and said that god
>>revealed it to them. Would that still be science?
> 
> In science, theories are advanced so peers can debunk them. That's 
> falsification. How does one debunk god?
> 
> 
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>