*!"Do You Believe in Science?"!*

Post Reply New Topic

The first being did not come into being. It always was. What other explanation could there be?
Something cannot come out of nothing, unless that First Thing is not affected by time, is utterly unconditioned. I realize how many of you reject the idea of something being eternal and immune to conditions. Smells too much like religion, doesn't it? I know. One thing's for sure, it IS a mystery. If you can accept the unknowable into your paradigm and not try to unravel it, you may end up with less of a headache.

Do I believe in Science?



It's actually a good question, for us all, because one need not question anyone as to
whether they believe in facts, for we all do. But Science is hardly on the level of fact,
and those who think it is are in conceit.
Rather, it is merely a process by which some flawed
and some less-flawed experiments yield flawed or less-flawed results.
Science (scientific consensus) can be right, but it is often enough wrong to be doubtworthy.


Thus, I believe more in empirical verification than in Science.

For instance, I do not believe in what is morphing into a political/religious sect of its own,
from whence the high priests of "Science" can throw down their decrees of
what is and is not fact.

(And no religion should do this either. People need to each decide what to believe in.
The role of religious leaders, therefore, should be only to provide information, love, and encouragement,
not to demand that their followers accept certain interpretations.)

The first post proves you believe in objective reality. If you believe you exist, you believe in objective reality. You can't be self-conscious (aware of something) if it doesn't really exist, objective existence = real.

I think you're confusing what is REAL with what is TRUE, we know the world is real, but science does not always describe the world truthfully, at best science partial-truth mixed in with errors, because it's a really big job(tm), to understand our environment, which is orders of magnitude bigger then our small minds can wrap themselves around in one single lifetime.

science that doesn't = fact is simply due logic misapplied. however, i care little for berating of science from people who don't even have an intimate knowledge of the applied logic in experiments to understand when/how/why wrong conclusions are drawn from experiments... cause when this happens, you have no appreciation or comprehension for the correct conclusions and it all becomes this mystical hearsay that is (understandably) incongruent.

Find those people who don't know how to conduct proper experiments and kill them. Do it for yourself if not for all mankind.
If you don't tell us when we're wrong, who will? God probably doesn't have a clear enough calendar but I think you do.

I believe in my own theory of everything.

Mainstream science is too conservative and has similar characteristics to a religion in a sense that if something doesn't fit their current theories; they rather do anything in their power to disprove or dismiss the conflicting idea to defend their 'beliefs', before even dreading to investigate it properly and if necessary, change something.

What is your Theory of Everything? You've got me curious now.

It is far too complicated to explain, as I literally have redefined some aspects of physics at their core. So if I tried to explain it without present detailed diagrams, then it would be too confusing to read. But to joke, 42 does have validity to it; because I found that my theory contains 42 fundamental energy forms (6 parts, 36 components) that exist lol, what a coincidence.

Besides not to sound selfish but, it is not really meant for this world, but for the next. I anticipate a massive cataclysmic event to wipe out nearly all of humanity soon, and someday when digging through the ruins, someone or something will find the book I made, containing my theory along with my own religious beliefs too. Only then everyone will know everything I wrote. Of course, I should add that my book is kept inside a wooden box too, to preserve it over time.

However I've given a few clues about it, among other things in some of my previous posts on occasion.

You dirty tease.

I believe in the basic axioms of science, but I don't necessarily believe that human science can explain everything. Just what we are capable of comprehending. It is possible that there is another dimension or another realm of reality (ie "afterlife", or even dream state) out there, but for here and now this reality is what matters most to us, the world that we can see, feel, hear, taste, and smell. Whatever is beyond this is beyond our ability to know, comprehend, or explain here..... So what matters here is the here-and-now. We can't place rules on the unknown, and especially on things greater than our ability to comprehend. And whatever the afterlife holds, we'll find out when we get there. But it's just stupid to deny our immediate reality with some post modern idiocy.

Yes, it's po-mo New Age bullsh*t of the finest vintage.

Pssst: I was exorcising ( partially) my unthinking acceptance of science from my head, shaking up my previous reverential, automatic, socially conditioned respect for it, at the same time as my essential indifference to/alienation from it, subjecting my beliefs about it to examination. Very refreshing.

I think that you can't have read the thread, the process and arguments which ensued. It was interesting. It was three months ago.

My last post on the thread, two days ago, ( after it had been dead for months) was to say that I understand science better now, as the method humans in the West found to throw off the yoke of Christian oppression. Very creative of them.

PS: slowmutant; the name is o u i n o n, ( not onion, as you seem to think), which is "yes no" in french. Dialectics/dualism/yin-yang/thesis and antithesis = synthesis etc!