And what about laptops and netbooks, which are the majority of the 'PC' market today?
Note that one of the motherboard vendors, ASUS, offers laptops. Perhaps other vendors have or will follow them. This would seem probable if the traditional laptop vendors left a void in the market by not supplying Linux compatible models themselves.
For example the roman catholic church teaches evolution in its science classes. This church has stated that there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. I believe other major denominations have similar views.
a recent development largely due to politics and a desire to keep the church relevant as possible while still holding on to a false sense of historical consistency with existing dogma.
I'm not so sure of that. Part of the science behind biological evolution comes not only from members of the church but from members of the clergy.
Regarding going with the evidence, a Bishop at Oxford helped establish the framework of the western tradition of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, predict, and test.
a scientist can be religious as long as his studies don't conflict with his beliefs. the second they do and he lets his faith override his results, he has failed.
Agreed, just like the scientist who is personally hostile to a church and lets his personal bias dismiss a theory coming from a member of that church.
Yes, Galileo's work was censored, I mentioned that. Now note that I also wrote his problems were more political than scientific. Note that the heliocentric model was actually published by Copernicus, a catholic monk, and was not censored. Galileo's work referred to Copernicus' work, Galileo was not the first to bring it up. The heliocentric model got caught in the political BS Galileo created by mocking the pope in his work. The heliocentric model was initially merely not the more widely accepted theory in church circles, much like string theory was not the more widely accepted theory in modern scientific circles. The church, like modern science, does update its model of the universe when proven wrong. It just may move slower than science and the politics of the day really threw a wrench into this process regarding heliocentrism. For example the church accepts the scientific model of the evolution of the universe, actually the church greatly helped this along. It was a priest that introduced the big bang theory. Also the church accepts the scientific finding regarding the evolution of life and has stated that these finding are not in conflict with faith. You can fixate on the errors made with respect to Galileo but you erroneously ignore the context and the uniqueness of this event. Not to mention that you ignore that heliocentrism was the product of a monk, the big bang theory the product of a priest, the western framework of the scientific method the product of a bishop,... The church has been part of the process of scientific discovery. However like all human endeavors it occasionally stumbles.
When I read through your citations I don't see where the passages says the earth is flat. That conclusion seems a bit of a stretch, even without introducing details like the english language bible being a stylized translation of a translation of a translation... and has been proven to have translation error. For example thou shall not kill, kill an erroneous translation of murder. I believe the church has long stated that monks and scribes have made errors and use this as one of the various reasons that the bible should not be taken literally. As the modern flat earthers seem to do. The practices and conclusions of these modern flat earthers are in conflict with the church.
You are mistaken when you claim the church believes in an unchanging world. See evolution above in both the cosmological and life sense. Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that the church teaches evolution in its science classes.
Regarding scorekeeping, sorry I thought you would have gotten the allusion to judgement day.:-)
Regarding god should have offered herding advice, he did. If you look at the old testament laws of the bible they are sort of a regional survival manual. Herders, farmers and fisherman receive good advice. For example if you avoid the type of sea food prohibited by these law you happen to avoid most of the toxic species in the region.
Perhaps I was too brief. Credentials, or academic record as you wrote, can make you a scientist.
You still have that backwards. You don't get credentials and then you become a scientist. You are a scientist and if you're good, you start getting credentials.
That's an odd perspective. Most people see the credentials (degrees, certificates, etc) as evidence of having successfully completed your training and that one is now an accredited scientist, engineer, etc. Prior to this you are a student, an apprentice, etc.
Or by credentials do you mean published papers and the like?
Dictionary definitions are one thing but what happens in the real world is something else.
Really? You should desperately tell that to the people who write the dictionaries. I was kind of under the impression they are writing about the real world, not some fantasy lalaland. Like, say, the holy books.
Many working in academia, industry and government find textbook and dictionary definitions to be from lalaland too.
I'm talking about politics within the scientific community.
No, you are talking about something we wouldn't call "politics". Kuhn called it "paradigm shifts" and provided an extensive analysis as to why new knowledge takes a while to penetrate.
Wrong. Telling students to stay away from a topic is politics. Dismissing or being prejudiced against a hypothesis because the author is a priest is also politics. These are things quite different from a methodical change from one paradigm to another.
Galileo's argument was not that the earth was flat. He supported the Copernican model where the earth and planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus was a clergyman by the way. Galileo's problems had more to do with politics and his mocking the pope and less to do with the Copernican model. Copernicus didn't become off limits until he got caught up in this political witch hunt and used as a pretext.
By the way, "scientific" observation (pre-classical greek scientists, indian scientists (200s?), somewhat recent chinese scientists {1600s?}, etc) has been used to explain that the earth is flat too. Poor instruments (human eyes), poor observations (ground level), poor model (earth far larger than assumed),...
The fact that god has not returned to clarify things now that we have a greater level of sophistication says nothing. My understanding is that he is more of a scorekeeper right now, not an active player. Besides, what is the necessity, we are learning to figure it out. Perhaps that is part of the plan, our evolution?:-)
The difference here is that this open minded process of going where the evidence leads isn't shared by religion... rather than accept evolution and our understanding of life the religious have taken to denigrating and ignoring evolution and what is meant by the theory
That's not true. You confuse religion with some churches whose views represent a minority opinion.
For example the roman catholic church teaches evolution in its science classes. This church has stated that there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. I believe other major denominations have similar views.
Regarding going with the evidence, a Bishop at Oxford helped establish the framework of the western tradition of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, predict, and test.
I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore.
The roman catholic church operates an observatory, supports academic research into cosmology and works with leading observatories and cosmologists around the world. They seem to be actively researching the evolution of the universe, quantum mechanics, etc. Regarding the evolution of life I believe the church says there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. They teach evolution in their science classes. They don't take the book of genesis literally. I believe various other churches have similar perspectives.
I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists. A bishop, Grosseteste, helped lay out the framework for the scientific method and also did early work in optics. Another bishop, Saint Albert, did early work in chemistry and biological field research. Copernicus was a clergyman. A friar, Mendel, did early genetics research. A priest, Lemaitre, revolutionized cosmology is recent history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Vatican_Observatory
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
So basically, when science disagrees with the Bible, its words have to be "interpreted" since the alleged word of god can't possibly be wrong.
Well if an all knowing god is having a conversation about the evolution of the universe with a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago, and god expects the herder to pass along the conversation to his friends and acquaintances, then god has to phrase things differently than if god were having a conversation with Stephen Hawking and expecting the conversation to be shared with his cosmologist peers.
If a very young child were to ask me what computer memory is I might say that its like many boxes, and in each box you can put one number, or one letter, or one colored dot. I probably would't go with its a collection of many billions of microscopic circuits that can maintain a voltage level at a high or a low point and thus represent a binary quanta of information. Was my earlier description wrong or an age appropriate metaphor?
Careful, you sound like you may fit in well with the eminent scientists who back in the day dismissed a roman catholic priest's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Dismissing it because (1) it came from a priest and (2) it "smelled of creationism". Today we know this theory by a phrase used by these scientists to mock the hypothesis, "the big bang theory". Men of science are not above letting their personal biases and social/group norms interfere with their objectivity.
Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life.
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide?
I don't think they are dismissing, I think they are interpreting. For example the 7 days of genesis may not have been 24 hour periods.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
That still begs the question: how can one tell whether or not the "word of god" is speaking metaphorically?
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
Normal people would not care if the system could run Linux. They don't know how to use Linux, they probably don't even know what it is.
In any case, if the computers found in retail establishments are locked down to run only Windows it hardly matters. Motherboard manufacturers like ASUS, Gigabtye, MSI, etc will surely offer motherboards that are Linux friendly. They already produce motherboards and other products targeting the hobbyist market. Don't want to screw together your own computer? Well there have always been local clone shops and online sites that were happy to build a PC from hobbyist oriented components.
In addition to the hobbyist option above there will likely be professional grade stuff from major vendors. So maybe you have to go to Dell or HP's Small/Home office product line rather than the consumer product line.
Less convenient than what we have today? Sure. You could even say annoying. However it would not be the end of the world for fans of Linux.
I have personally seen a gril going and asking the salesman : which of these laptops are available in pink
After that she bought the one with the least weight among the pink ones
She did not check the config even once
And if she is just going to browse the web, maybe use an email client (more likely web based email) and maybe run the bundled word processor what is the problem? I think we are long past the point where even the most modest computer at the local retailer has performance far beyond the needs of casual users. Hell, a tablet plus a bluetooth keyboard is probably an option for many such users.
That is my point. That is why the more scientific answer to questions regarding the existence of god are of the "I don't known" persuasion.
What I've been trying to express (not very clearly, I guess!) is that science doesn't give any answer at all to your question, not even "I don't know", because you haven't asked a meaningful question. Answering, "I don't know," would indicate your question was well defined, and we didn't know the answer to it.
In other related subthreads I've been more clear and stated that existence/nonexistence of god is something beyond discovery or proof. In my original post I wrote "I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other" in a very casual manner. "No evidence" was meant in an absolute sense.
Finder on Mac OSX hides all important standard Unix directories such as/etc and/usr, and/home is also empty; users are found in/Users.
This makes Finder pretty useless and stops any users learning about the true directory hierarchy. I can see the move to simplify the filesystem as great for newtime users, but it isn't actually that bad as it currently is with lib64 and lib and everything else. Why fix what is not broken?
The unix stuff is behind the scenes, there is no intention to make it necessary for a user to ever become aware of it. The unix stuff is really a secondary environment for those wanting to use traditional unix tools and apps. There was originally debate as to whether the console would even be installed by default, leaving it as an optional install for those who desired it.
Science does not make definitive statements about the existence or non-existence of anything. The only thing it makes definitive statements about is whether the predictions of particular theories are or are not consistent with the evidence.
That is my point. That is why the more scientific answer to questions regarding the existence of god are of the "I don't known" persuasion.
You still haven't answered my question: what would you accept as evidence against the existence of God?
I don't know.:-)
The set of things that cannot be disproved is infinite. Do you believe in all of them?
Who said I believe in anything? I'm just arguing that the scientific answer to some questions are "We don't know". Well that and I am recognizing that scientists sometimes let personal biases and social pressures influence their work.
A true scientist has nothing to do with academic credentials.
Uh, what? You can't be serious. But let's play: If not for progressing the sciences, and thus being a scientist, what do academic credentials have something to do with? I'll gladly agree that the quantity is secondary - you're not a better scientist with a longer list of credentials. But saying they have nothing to do with each other is ridiculous.
Perhaps I was too brief. Credentials, or academic record as you wrote, can make you a scientist. However whether you are a great scientist is an entirely different matter. I'm using "true" in the great sort of context, not in a technical sense as to whether you can be legitimately called a scientist. For example I once worked with a UC Berkeley Computer Science grad whose GPA was close to 4.0. Great credentials, but on the job he turned out to not be that great, actually probably a little below average.
It is more along the lines of not letting social or cultural factors influence a position.
Errr... that is a very strange way of putting it. Science is (Merriam-Webster) "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". In short: Science is a method. The not-being-influenced-by you state is a consequence of the method, but really, neither the core nor the most important part. Science is a lot more about stating theories, testing them, adapting them to the evidence available, etc. Science certainly is not about not having an informed opinion or taking a stand. What science is a lot about is not being dogmatic about a position, and being willing to change it if the evidence shows it is wrong.
Dictionary definitions are one thing but what happens in the real world is something else. For example academic research is heavily influenced by various unscientific things, politics for example. And I'm not talking about Washington DC politics, I'm talking about politics within the scientific community. Lets look at string theory. When originally introduced the leading minds of the physics community dismissed it. Grads students interested in the theory were told by their advisers to do their research elsewhere, that this topic could be detrimental to their career. Some researchers ignored the politics and investigated the topic anyway and a decade or so later it became a well respected theory. An example where a hostility towards religion degrades the conduct of scientists is the big bang theory. The theory was proposed by a catholic priest and the leading scientists of the time dismissed it and mocked it, largely because a priest proposed it, and commented that it "smelled of creationism". So when I am referring to "true" scientists I am referring to those who consider theories and evidence without politics and other social pressures influencing them.
Zeus, Santa, etc claim to be part of our universe. Residing on Mt. Olympus, at the north pole, etc. God is believed to be something outside of our universe.
The problem is that they claim their book is the word of their god. If they can discard parts as allegory, but others as truth, then how do they decide?
I don't think they are dismissing, I think they are interpreting. For example the 7 days of genesis may not have been 24 hour periods.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
What if Harry Potter is outside the universe? Not to mention flying monsters of the pasta persuasion? What makes this 'god' special? You think it's a reasonable proposition, but why? To me it is no less fantastical and arbitrary than the others,
Well if Harry is in a different universe it would be erroneous to apply our universe's laws of physics. I believe that physicists hypothesizing a multiverse are pretty clear that our laws of nature are likely to be unique.
A true scientist has nothing to do with academic credentials. It is more along the lines of not letting social or cultural factors influence a position. I believe both theists and atheists are doing so. Agnostics seem truer to the ideals of science.
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Yes, that's what they say about Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.
Its known that FSM was created as a joke. It is certainly knowable if there is a teapot out there in a solar orbit. A god is something outside of the universe and therefore unknowable, just like a different universe that is part of a multiverse would be.
Agnosticism to God or to Harry Potter and the FSM? Why should a 'true scientist' be expected to privilege the God hypothesis when it seems no more logical, coherent or justified than claims which only seem ridiculous in comparison because religion is culturally acceptable?
Because a scientist understands that the existence of god is an aspect of humanity that science can not investigate, being outside of the universe and all that. Just as they understand that a different universe from ours, part of a multiverse, can not be investigate. Unlike a stick/wand that is some sort of energy source and has a voice interface, something that could be investigated should one turn up. After all any sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be wizardry.:-)
If you're comfortable with the Genesis account of Creation being a non-literal metaphor, what do you make of Original Sin then? It does seem pretty clear that New Testament Christianity, as the OP states, relies heavily on the literal Original Sin underlying Jesus' raison d'etre.
The larger truth of the metaphor/allegory may be that mankind was in a good place but disobeyed god. How would this conflict with a more accurate understanding of the mechanics of the universe and of life?
Slashdot Mirror
And what about laptops and netbooks, which are the majority of the 'PC' market today?
Note that one of the motherboard vendors, ASUS, offers laptops. Perhaps other vendors have or will follow them. This would seem probable if the traditional laptop vendors left a void in the market by not supplying Linux compatible models themselves.
For example the roman catholic church teaches evolution in its science classes. This church has stated that there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. I believe other major denominations have similar views.
a recent development largely due to politics and a desire to keep the church relevant as possible while still holding on to a false sense of historical consistency with existing dogma.
I'm not so sure of that. Part of the science behind biological evolution comes not only from members of the church but from members of the clergy.
Regarding going with the evidence, a Bishop at Oxford helped establish the framework of the western tradition of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, predict, and test.
a scientist can be religious as long as his studies don't conflict with his beliefs. the second they do and he lets his faith override his results, he has failed.
Agreed, just like the scientist who is personally hostile to a church and lets his personal bias dismiss a theory coming from a member of that church.
Yes, Galileo's work was censored, I mentioned that. Now note that I also wrote his problems were more political than scientific. Note that the heliocentric model was actually published by Copernicus, a catholic monk, and was not censored. Galileo's work referred to Copernicus' work, Galileo was not the first to bring it up. The heliocentric model got caught in the political BS Galileo created by mocking the pope in his work. The heliocentric model was initially merely not the more widely accepted theory in church circles, much like string theory was not the more widely accepted theory in modern scientific circles. The church, like modern science, does update its model of the universe when proven wrong. It just may move slower than science and the politics of the day really threw a wrench into this process regarding heliocentrism. For example the church accepts the scientific model of the evolution of the universe, actually the church greatly helped this along. It was a priest that introduced the big bang theory. Also the church accepts the scientific finding regarding the evolution of life and has stated that these finding are not in conflict with faith. You can fixate on the errors made with respect to Galileo but you erroneously ignore the context and the uniqueness of this event. Not to mention that you ignore that heliocentrism was the product of a monk, the big bang theory the product of a priest, the western framework of the scientific method the product of a bishop, ... The church has been part of the process of scientific discovery. However like all human endeavors it occasionally stumbles.
... and has been proven to have translation error. For example thou shall not kill, kill an erroneous translation of murder. I believe the church has long stated that monks and scribes have made errors and use this as one of the various reasons that the bible should not be taken literally. As the modern flat earthers seem to do. The practices and conclusions of these modern flat earthers are in conflict with the church.
:-)
When I read through your citations I don't see where the passages says the earth is flat. That conclusion seems a bit of a stretch, even without introducing details like the english language bible being a stylized translation of a translation of a translation
You are mistaken when you claim the church believes in an unchanging world. See evolution above in both the cosmological and life sense. Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that the church teaches evolution in its science classes.
Regarding scorekeeping, sorry I thought you would have gotten the allusion to judgement day.
Regarding god should have offered herding advice, he did. If you look at the old testament laws of the bible they are sort of a regional survival manual. Herders, farmers and fisherman receive good advice. For example if you avoid the type of sea food prohibited by these law you happen to avoid most of the toxic species in the region.
Perhaps I was too brief. Credentials, or academic record as you wrote, can make you a scientist.
You still have that backwards. You don't get credentials and then you become a scientist. You are a scientist and if you're good, you start getting credentials.
That's an odd perspective. Most people see the credentials (degrees, certificates, etc) as evidence of having successfully completed your training and that one is now an accredited scientist, engineer, etc. Prior to this you are a student, an apprentice, etc.
Or by credentials do you mean published papers and the like?
Dictionary definitions are one thing but what happens in the real world is something else.
Really? You should desperately tell that to the people who write the dictionaries. I was kind of under the impression they are writing about the real world, not some fantasy lalaland. Like, say, the holy books.
Many working in academia, industry and government find textbook and dictionary definitions to be from lalaland too.
I'm talking about politics within the scientific community.
No, you are talking about something we wouldn't call "politics". Kuhn called it "paradigm shifts" and provided an extensive analysis as to why new knowledge takes a while to penetrate.
Wrong. Telling students to stay away from a topic is politics. Dismissing or being prejudiced against a hypothesis because the author is a priest is also politics. These are things quite different from a methodical change from one paradigm to another.
Galileo's argument was not that the earth was flat. He supported the Copernican model where the earth and planets revolved around the sun. Copernicus was a clergyman by the way. Galileo's problems had more to do with politics and his mocking the pope and less to do with the Copernican model. Copernicus didn't become off limits until he got caught up in this political witch hunt and used as a pretext.
...
:-)
By the way, "scientific" observation (pre-classical greek scientists, indian scientists (200s?), somewhat recent chinese scientists {1600s?}, etc) has been used to explain that the earth is flat too. Poor instruments (human eyes), poor observations (ground level), poor model (earth far larger than assumed),
The fact that god has not returned to clarify things now that we have a greater level of sophistication says nothing. My understanding is that he is more of a scorekeeper right now, not an active player. Besides, what is the necessity, we are learning to figure it out. Perhaps that is part of the plan, our evolution?
The difference here is that this open minded process of going where the evidence leads isn't shared by religion ... rather than accept evolution and our understanding of life the religious have taken to denigrating and ignoring evolution and what is meant by the theory
That's not true. You confuse religion with some churches whose views represent a minority opinion.
For example the roman catholic church teaches evolution in its science classes. This church has stated that there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. I believe other major denominations have similar views.
Regarding going with the evidence, a Bishop at Oxford helped establish the framework of the western tradition of the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, predict, and test.
I'm still wondering when major religions will not just stop questioning, but actually declare a part of their religion, things like evolution and quantum mechanics. It seems the closest they can get is dragged by public outcry into making some sort of declaration not to talk about it anymore.
The roman catholic church operates an observatory, supports academic research into cosmology and works with leading observatories and cosmologists around the world. They seem to be actively researching the evolution of the universe, quantum mechanics, etc. Regarding the evolution of life I believe the church says there is no conflict with faith and the scientific findings regarding evolution. They teach evolution in their science classes. They don't take the book of genesis literally. I believe various other churches have similar perspectives.
I am aware of churches that are quite admittedly progressive, but thank you, I'll still take the word of actual scientists on matters of science.
I'm just pointing out that some folks with a deep faith are also actual scientists. A bishop, Grosseteste, helped lay out the framework for the scientific method and also did early work in optics. Another bishop, Saint Albert, did early work in chemistry and biological field research. Copernicus was a clergyman. A friar, Mendel, did early genetics research. A priest, Lemaitre, revolutionized cosmology is recent history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science#Vatican_Observatory
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
So basically, when science disagrees with the Bible, its words have to be "interpreted" since the alleged word of god can't possibly be wrong.
Well if an all knowing god is having a conversation about the evolution of the universe with a primitive sheep herder from millennia ago, and god expects the herder to pass along the conversation to his friends and acquaintances, then god has to phrase things differently than if god were having a conversation with Stephen Hawking and expecting the conversation to be shared with his cosmologist peers.
If a very young child were to ask me what computer memory is I might say that its like many boxes, and in each box you can put one number, or one letter, or one colored dot. I probably would't go with its a collection of many billions of microscopic circuits that can maintain a voltage level at a high or a low point and thus represent a binary quanta of information. Was my earlier description wrong or an age appropriate metaphor?
Careful, you sound like you may fit in well with the eminent scientists who back in the day dismissed a roman catholic priest's "hypothesis of the primeval atom". Dismissing it because (1) it came from a priest and (2) it "smelled of creationism". Today we know this theory by a phrase used by these scientists to mock the hypothesis, "the big bang theory". Men of science are not above letting their personal biases and social/group norms interfere with their objectivity.
Many religious people and some churches believe that belief in god may require faith but that understanding god's creation is done through science. That includes both the evolution the universe and the evolution of life.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
That still begs the question: how can one tell whether or not the "word of god" is speaking metaphorically?
Through science. Various religious people and churches view science as the means to understand god's creation. If science shows a believer that the world is billions of years old then "7 days" would seem to fall on the metaphor side of the line.
Normal people would not care if the system could run Linux. They don't know how to use Linux, they probably don't even know what it is.
In any case, if the computers found in retail establishments are locked down to run only Windows it hardly matters. Motherboard manufacturers like ASUS, Gigabtye, MSI, etc will surely offer motherboards that are Linux friendly. They already produce motherboards and other products targeting the hobbyist market. Don't want to screw together your own computer? Well there have always been local clone shops and online sites that were happy to build a PC from hobbyist oriented components.
In addition to the hobbyist option above there will likely be professional grade stuff from major vendors. So maybe you have to go to Dell or HP's Small/Home office product line rather than the consumer product line.
Less convenient than what we have today? Sure. You could even say annoying. However it would not be the end of the world for fans of Linux.
I have personally seen a gril going and asking the salesman : which of these laptops are available in pink After that she bought the one with the least weight among the pink ones She did not check the config even once
And if she is just going to browse the web, maybe use an email client (more likely web based email) and maybe run the bundled word processor what is the problem? I think we are long past the point where even the most modest computer at the local retailer has performance far beyond the needs of casual users. Hell, a tablet plus a bluetooth keyboard is probably an option for many such users.
That is my point. That is why the more scientific answer to questions regarding the existence of god are of the "I don't known" persuasion.
What I've been trying to express (not very clearly, I guess!) is that science doesn't give any answer at all to your question, not even "I don't know", because you haven't asked a meaningful question. Answering, "I don't know," would indicate your question was well defined, and we didn't know the answer to it.
In other related subthreads I've been more clear and stated that existence/nonexistence of god is something beyond discovery or proof. In my original post I wrote "I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other" in a very casual manner. "No evidence" was meant in an absolute sense.
Finder on Mac OSX hides all important standard Unix directories such as /etc and /usr, and /home is also empty; users are found in /Users.
This makes Finder pretty useless and stops any users learning about the true directory hierarchy. I can see the move to simplify the filesystem as great for newtime users, but it isn't actually that bad as it currently is with lib64 and lib and everything else. Why fix what is not broken?
The unix stuff is behind the scenes, there is no intention to make it necessary for a user to ever become aware of it. The unix stuff is really a secondary environment for those wanting to use traditional unix tools and apps. There was originally debate as to whether the console would even be installed by default, leaving it as an optional install for those who desired it.
Science does not make definitive statements about the existence or non-existence of anything. The only thing it makes definitive statements about is whether the predictions of particular theories are or are not consistent with the evidence.
That is my point. That is why the more scientific answer to questions regarding the existence of god are of the "I don't known" persuasion.
You still haven't answered my question: what would you accept as evidence against the existence of God?
I don't know. :-)
The set of things that cannot be disproved is infinite. Do you believe in all of them?
Who said I believe in anything? I'm just arguing that the scientific answer to some questions are "We don't know". Well that and I am recognizing that scientists sometimes let personal biases and social pressures influence their work.
A true scientist has nothing to do with academic credentials.
Uh, what? You can't be serious. But let's play: If not for progressing the sciences, and thus being a scientist, what do academic credentials have something to do with? I'll gladly agree that the quantity is secondary - you're not a better scientist with a longer list of credentials. But saying they have nothing to do with each other is ridiculous.
Perhaps I was too brief. Credentials, or academic record as you wrote, can make you a scientist. However whether you are a great scientist is an entirely different matter. I'm using "true" in the great sort of context, not in a technical sense as to whether you can be legitimately called a scientist. For example I once worked with a UC Berkeley Computer Science grad whose GPA was close to 4.0. Great credentials, but on the job he turned out to not be that great, actually probably a little below average.
It is more along the lines of not letting social or cultural factors influence a position.
Errr... that is a very strange way of putting it. Science is (Merriam-Webster) "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method". In short: Science is a method. The not-being-influenced-by you state is a consequence of the method, but really, neither the core nor the most important part. Science is a lot more about stating theories, testing them, adapting them to the evidence available, etc. Science certainly is not about not having an informed opinion or taking a stand. What science is a lot about is not being dogmatic about a position, and being willing to change it if the evidence shows it is wrong.
Dictionary definitions are one thing but what happens in the real world is something else. For example academic research is heavily influenced by various unscientific things, politics for example. And I'm not talking about Washington DC politics, I'm talking about politics within the scientific community. Lets look at string theory. When originally introduced the leading minds of the physics community dismissed it. Grads students interested in the theory were told by their advisers to do their research elsewhere, that this topic could be detrimental to their career. Some researchers ignored the politics and investigated the topic anyway and a decade or so later it became a well respected theory. An example where a hostility towards religion degrades the conduct of scientists is the big bang theory. The theory was proposed by a catholic priest and the leading scientists of the time dismissed it and mocked it, largely because a priest proposed it, and commented that it "smelled of creationism". So when I am referring to "true" scientists I am referring to those who consider theories and evidence without politics and other social pressures influencing them.
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
It's impossible for there to be evidence against the existence of God
We seem to be in agreement that it would be unscientific to say definitively that god does not exist. :-)
I did not know the christian God was not part of our universe, did it say that in the bible?
I think so, in the part where it says god created the universe.
Zeus, Santa, etc claim to be part of our universe. Residing on Mt. Olympus, at the north pole, etc. God is believed to be something outside of our universe.
You just further proved his point.
Any metaphors or allegories that god chose to use when speaking to primitive sheep herders would still be the "word of god".
What if Harry Potter is outside the universe? Not to mention flying monsters of the pasta persuasion? What makes this 'god' special? You think it's a reasonable proposition, but why? To me it is no less fantastical and arbitrary than the others,
Well if Harry is in a different universe it would be erroneous to apply our universe's laws of physics. I believe that physicists hypothesizing a multiverse are pretty clear that our laws of nature are likely to be unique.
A true scientist has nothing to do with academic credentials. It is more along the lines of not letting social or cultural factors influence a position. I believe both theists and atheists are doing so. Agnostics seem truer to the ideals of science.
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Yes, that's what they say about Russell's Teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, too.
Its known that FSM was created as a joke. It is certainly knowable if there is a teapot out there in a solar orbit. A god is something outside of the universe and therefore unknowable, just like a different universe that is part of a multiverse would be.
Agnosticism to God or to Harry Potter and the FSM? Why should a 'true scientist' be expected to privilege the God hypothesis when it seems no more logical, coherent or justified than claims which only seem ridiculous in comparison because religion is culturally acceptable?
Because a scientist understands that the existence of god is an aspect of humanity that science can not investigate, being outside of the universe and all that. Just as they understand that a different universe from ours, part of a multiverse, can not be investigate. Unlike a stick/wand that is some sort of energy source and has a voice interface, something that could be investigated should one turn up. After all any sufficiently advanced technology would appear to be wizardry. :-)
If you're comfortable with the Genesis account of Creation being a non-literal metaphor, what do you make of Original Sin then? It does seem pretty clear that New Testament Christianity, as the OP states, relies heavily on the literal Original Sin underlying Jesus' raison d'etre.
The larger truth of the metaphor/allegory may be that mankind was in a good place but disobeyed god. How would this conflict with a more accurate understanding of the mechanics of the universe and of life?