Hi y'all - I agree with you, but I chose to use the word "divine" because Orn coined it. It is entirely his fault and his to define.
On Sep 27, 11:58 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<I agree that physics has not been able to disprove the existence of > a divine. >> > > That depends on your definition of divine. Physics has certainly > disproved certain types of gods, such as those that actively interfere > in the universe to keep it functioning. It has also disproved that > "heaven" lies above the sky, as the bible seems to assume. (That why > Jesus and others float upwards to "ascend" into heaven, and why voices > come from above, and why Jesus is supposed to return from above on a > white horse.) > > So by finding natural explanations for phenomena, science has > castrated the idea of "god" as an explanation for anything, a solution > for no problems. This is similar to the idea of "Luminiferous > aether". Einstein didn't disprove its existence, but he rendered its > existence as irrelevant. Most physicists would say it doesn't exist. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
