Friday, March 2, 2012 10:43:38 AM
To borrow some of jendrian's words: just because YOU can`t understand God, that doesn`t mean God isn`t real, it means you`re not open enough to understand Him. (Or you`re not really trying) Or something like that, LOL.
Friday, March 2, 2012 10:40:27 AM
"As for peer review: Well it's another scientist backing up the first one. So if two priests say they had the same experience under identical circumstances regarding God, that they were able to repeat the experiment, is that any different?"
Any thoughts? A lot of people experience God every day and have seen things that they consider evidence. (weeping statues, stigmata, full blown miracles) Why are they wrong? The problem I think is repeatability. Say you get something you pray for, by chance or divine intervention. There`s no guarantee of it happening again, but that doesn`t change the fact that it happened.
Friday, March 2, 2012 10:32:55 AM
Hey Angillion, good to see you. So we've established that science has a system of peer review to keep it honest. I can accept that. Should I always blindly accept facts as presented by science then? Or at least be certain, that soon, if there is a problem it will come out in the wash? Religion should be open to the same scrutiny in my opinion. I think it is, just most people don`t think so. I know my example was silly, but it was just an example. I don`t really think there is a huge conspiracy surrounding the LHC. To supply a reason for it though: Greed. Fame. One source says it cost 7.4 billion dollars. Spend a billion making a fake and you`ve got 6.4 left to play with. I know, silly, but it`s an answer.