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

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, January 06, 2011, 22:56 (5068 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

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.\"


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum