inference of a multiverse more plausible now: dark flow (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 06, 2011, 22:45 (4852 days ago) @ David Turell


> > If science is not about proving anything, but about model building, then why demand proof from religion. That is a double standard. That is saying, "We will speculate, but not prove. You, however, must prove all that you speculate upon." And ultimately, that pretty much sums up my personal disagreement with the scientific community. They demand something that they themselves refuse to provide. I have my hypothesis on God, and it has changed and grown and adapted as I have expanded my own personal knowledge base and will most likely continue to do so. How is that any different?
> 
> Your thoughts mirror mine very closely. I use science to provide new information which I then interpret in my own way. I've come to believe in a universal intelligence because nothing else makes sense to me. Is that the God of religions? No. Religions are mans' wishful thinking for an anthropomorphic 'Sky Daddy'. Clear thinking regarding a source 'for all that is', to quote Bella, requires divorcing oneself from all Biblical references, studying scientific findings, and THEN going back and looking at the Bible for interesting observations and insights. And this appplies also to the ancient Hindu and Buddhist books.-There is no creation myth in Zen Buddhism.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"