> In the case I'm discussing here, we've observed something that doesn't fit the standard theories. The only 2 approaches is to extend the current model or make a new one.
> 
> To put it bluntly, even if its the only explanation in existence for this, it is also the best one. This is also my answer to your other question on evolution by NS. Until a better, more powerful theory displaces it, its all we have. So I accept it. In the case of dark matter however... time is needed. This is the first time I've been prompted to take a multiverse seriously. (Outside of conjecture, that is...)-So Penrose didn't impress you with his recent book and the theory therein?

The theory of a mutiverse is hardly unique. However, this is the first model that i have seen that can mathematically make sense of the stream of galaxies that flow or are pulled (seemingly) towards an unseen focal point. A multiverse makes mathematical sense. Another plausible theory is to follow inflation theory to the point that some matter in the universe went past the point of the speed of light, and that which is pulling our galaxies cannot be seen as it is already past the point of visibility when we look at it.


> 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.


> > Well, as long as we remember that science isn't about 'proving' but model building, we'll avoid the pitfalls associated with 'proof.' 
> > 
> > As for Dawkins, considering that science has dispelled nearly all supernatural explanations, he's got a reason to be cocky. While I sometimes wish I could be religious, it's important to note that overall, science has made life visibly better for everyone. (For the record I've never read one of his books, though I'm familiar with his ideas and attitudes.)
> 
> 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."-"Proof" means that you have arrived at an irrefutable conclusion, such as 1+1=2, or that all numbers can be represented by the multiplication of primes.-Science simply doesn't operate like mathematics. In science you observe, record, and hypothesize, and you generate "more" or "less" likely alternatives. Though our human wish for steadfastness always intervenes to our detriment.-Where religion goes wrong is when it applies itself to the physical world. Zeus causes lightening, don't you know that?-In the case of christianity, we have no evidence that resurrection is possible. But it turns out that that the entire religion turns upon that single claim being true. It defies reason and experience. It is in THIS kind of claim that a scientist can ask, "What is you evidence for this claim?"-But note the semantical difference between 'evidence' and 'proof' and you should understand the nuance of my thinking more clearly...-> 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?-That depends entirely on your claim.

--
\"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.\"

Your words here deserve a little more consideration.
> 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?-You need to eliminate the word "proof" from the usage you are here. Science is about gathering and anlyzing evidence.-The debate has nothing at all to do with religion and science, but in opposing normative epistemologies.-Once you've made your decision on what you accept as valid knowledge, this is what creates your conflict.-Dawkins doesn't accept divine revelation. Therefore, he will dismiss these texts as hearsay, that if they're correct about something, it's more likely coincidence.-Again however, religion isn't meant to be the answer for how we got here, but in how we should deal with each other and God.-I can't see science doing this at all...-They are not opposed,but they clearly have firm solution boundaries...

--
\"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.\"