So is this Jesus Christ?
|
Lets use arguments of scientific method? These are objective and subject to rigorous tests, after which you can make a conclusion/statement and be sure about its validity, that better?
We all know where that will lead us. No books of fiction there. Spreading salt since 2006
|
|
|
Thank god i'm an atheist.
Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" That's why in science, they use the term "theory" quite often. Scientists are not afraid to be proven wrong, in fact, scientific progress largely depends on it. Carry on my waypoint son, there'll be peace when maps are done.
Lay your portal gem to rest, don't you die no more. 'Cause it's a bitter sweet symphony this league. Try to make maps meet, you're a slave to the meta, then you leave. |
|
" That's bullshit though, science already has a lot of fields it has no authority in or knows very well they cannot present reasonable scientific evidence of. You could ask any scientist on this planet "what's exactly inside a black hole" "what happens before the big bang"(assuming this is your standardized view of the conception of the universe) I could pose there is a purple leprechaun riding a pink unicorn in the center of a black hole and no scientist could prove otherwise. I wouldn't be able to validate my own statement either though, but neither methods could pose evidence. In case of the big bang, one view says energy was already present while the other poses energy was formed out of a vacuum of nothingness. It's an endless circle where the most common acknowledged one "wins out" by consensus of the masses without actual quantifiable proof. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
Those are metaphysical questions, Boem. Science cannot answer them. It doesn't deny their importance, but just knows that observation and hypothesis testing isn't going to answer them.
|
|
|
Science is technically agnostic, I know. But it is better than belief alone.
And since I'm in science world myself, I know that it only describes phenomena of material world, but it can't explain simplest and most elementary things like where does mass come from and other paradoxal events that happen beyond the quantum scale and why can't we observe phenomena beyond Planck's length just to mention some. We are able to explain and use equation to predict around 0.5% of all visible phenomena, therefore to claim you know something does or doesn't exist I find more insulting than to claim not to know (agnosticism). And science is the least complicated of all things, I went reading some philosophy and that is hellish just to start following train of thought with some advanced concepts. Therefore science and philosophy themselves are enough for me. Religion can have its place with those who need it. Shags mentioned metaphysics. Most people I know that work and study metaphysics are beyond age of 60, seriously. This stuff is only for those who can devote a portion of their life to study it. I find it good combination of science backed philosophy. In the end, I tend to define myself as cosmicist/nihilist, aka in the scale of "hugeness" of this growing universe we are more insignificant than bacteria that lives on the surface of grain of sand on a beach, therefore, having arguments about something significant only to humans poses little interest to me, simply because it is pointless compared to vastness of existence and our insignificance and ego. And to quote Lovecraft : " Spreading salt since 2006 Last edited by Necromael#6926 on Dec 23, 2016, 9:26:18 AM
|
|
" Which is why i called the "let's use arguments of the scientific method' bullshit in this context. Since they don't touch this domain in the knowledge that satisfactory proof can't be attained. I'm not entirely convinced about your "it doesn't deny their importance" statement though, while true, people that grow up in today's world where most things are dictated by scientific proofability things that fall out of those perception fields seem easily ignored and underestimated. The post of KAW where he states that people with beliefs and hope are looked down upon is a trent i tend to agree with in the current age and is most likely attributed to the prevalence and power science has in our society. Which very much pits itself against "hope and belief" in order to justify or validate it's perceived necessity. Being pretty generalistic(is that a word?) here though, it's easier to get a point across that way. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
" LOL yea thank god I don't believe in God xd ey
|
|
" A joke is statistically proven to be 120% less effective if you need to explain it. Peace, -Boem- Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
| |
|
Answers in().
" Comment after quote. " So a very powerful and omnipotent God, created a perfect world, with imperfect humans and angels with freewill (cause how can a perfect thing messed up?), and can predict the future maybe only 98% that's why humans and angels made dumb mistakes He didn't see, and that's why we are in this mess and terrible place we are in today? That the gist of it. Is that a theory or is that the truth? Any case, sure if that's what you believe. Look, I don't want to prevent you from your beliefs, I'd agree to some parts of it but not all of it. Maybe you can check how your 'Godmanual' was created, try to use non-biblical sources if able. I'm not saying that 'Godmanual' is bad, I agree to some of it, but not all. Filthy Casual Scrub. "Belief is the strongest metal of them all." - Izaro Last edited by element274#1105 on Dec 23, 2016, 10:16:29 AM
|
|
