Originally posted by EladarI stand corrected, ignorant people boast to know everything...but what is your point, isn't it best to get away from ignorance?
[b]no-one ever boast to know the ultimate answer
Total BS. But if that's the kind of thing you want to put in your pipe to smoke, that's your choice.[/b]
It is best to get away from believing that our assumptions are truths. In other words, it is best to make the distinction between what we can reproduce and see first hand as opposed to things that we can't reproduce.
Case in point: God
What do we do about God? God can be neither proven or disproven by Science. In our search for knowledge we demand that something be reproduced. It must follow natural laws as we understand them. God works outside of the laws of nature and therefore can't be studied by Science. Science is based on studying natural laws and reproducible events, not the super natural. I have no problem with that, but we must recognize the limitations of what we can know.
The idea that if we want to know what happened, then we must study it from a naturalistic point of view and make the truth fit into a model that only allows for what we can reproduce assumes that God does not exist. Yet, as I said earlier Science can't prove or disprove God's existance. This means that the assumption that God does not exist and the Universe was the the result of a naturalist non-miraculous event is nothing but circular reasoning. Any attempt to know 'truth' based on this circular reasoning. I think that you would agree that circular reasoning is no way to derive truth.
Originally posted by EladarYes, I presume we are saying the same thing, but on different sides of the fence.
It is best to get away from believing that our assumptions are truths. In other words, it is best to make the distinction between what we can reproduce and see first hand as opposed to things that we can't reproduce.
Case in point: God
What do we do about God? God can be neither proven or disproven by Science. In our search for knowledge we demand t asoning. I think that you would agree that circular reasoning is no way to derive truth.
I say, science is a more humble approach to understanding the universe. It is full of people willing to wade waist deep in crap to find a piece of evidence , rather than just assume it is there.
Not at all. They are willing to wade into the crap, come up with an explanation about how it got there and demand that everyone accept the explanation as truth.
I'm not saying all fields of science does this, just the areas that try to explain how things came into being based on certain assumptions.
Originally posted by EladarBut that is EXACTLY what religious people expect us to believe, as if anyone on earth has any answer to what your purported god is like.
Not at all. They are willing to wade into the crap, come up with an explanation about how it got there and demand that everyone accept the explanation as truth.
I'm not saying all fields of science does this, just the areas that try to explain how things came into being based on certain assumptions.
You nor anyone else on earth has a clue as to what a god would be like since it never comes around to all people at once, something a god could easily do, since you think it only comes to certain people, that is good enough proof to me all religious people are onto the biggest scam since Moses.
Originally posted by EladarIt is saddening to see that you don't find your previous statment hipocritical. take a good look at it, and carefully think about what you wrote. In my experience, religion has done the same exact thing as what you claim science has done. CREATED AN ANSWER FOR SOMETHING KNOWN NOTHING ABOUT!
Not at all. They are willing to wade into the crap, come up with an explanation about how it got there and demand that everyone accept the explanation as truth.
I'm not saying all fields of science does this, just the areas that try to explain how things came into being based on certain assumptions.
It is saddening to see that you don't find your previous statment hipocritical. take a good look at it, and carefully think about what you wrote
I am neither sad nor surprised that you don't find yourself hypocritical when you claim that I'm being hypocritical. Some people believe their point of view is so true, that everyone else must accept it as true.
The difference between you and me is that I do not demand that you believe that my beliefs are true. I'm simply asking you to see your beliefs as beliefs, not simply as truth. But I'm sure you are unable to do that.
Originally posted by EladarYes, you are right, beliefs are beliefs, science is based on axioms. It has tons of flaws, and it always will. But so will religion
[b]
It is saddening to see that you don't find your previous statment hipocritical. take a good look at it, and carefully think about what you wrote
I am neither sad nor surprised that you don't find yourself hypocritical when you claim that I'm being hypocritical. Some people believe their point of view is so true, that everyone else must accept it see your beliefs as beliefs, not simply as truth. But I'm sure you are unable to do that.[/b]
Originally posted by EladarI can't tell you how many times while reading a physics text, that I have come across the stament, "But this theory fails due to such and such"...so at one point, science had to be based on a belief, if beliefs were changed...To change belief, is the nature of science.
I have the feeling you are playing a word game here, one that I've played before. But I've made my point. You can either see what I'm saying or not.
Originally posted by joe shmoI don't think so at all. You do the best with what you've got. That's the nature of science. It is only those who believe that they have a perfect understanding of nature and this is really how things work that need to change their beliefs.
I can't tell you how many times while reading a physics text, that I have come across the stament, "But this theory fails due to such and such"...so at one point, science had to be based on a belief if we changed beliefs...to change belief is the nature of science.
Originally posted by Eladarthe problem with science is that it probably won't ever answer why? For the past 400 years it has tirlesly worked to answer "how" at best, and there are many failures and triumphs left to be quantitized in this question alone.
I don't think so at all. You do the best with what you've got. That's the nature of science. It is only those who believe that they have a perfect understanding of nature and this is really how things work that need to change their beliefs.