It uses belief, because all the data we have collected is based on the "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." claim, wich can´t really be challenged!
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that!
Why should claims be challenged to verify their validity? Because otherwise they may turn out to be false. Not challenging claims is more likely to lead to mistakes.
There you go. I challenged the claim that claims should be challenged.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because otherwise they <b>may</b> turn out to be false. Not challenging claims <b>is more likely</b> to lead to mistakes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they may turn out to true from the beginning, too. Why do you believe they could be false?
How do you get the knowledge the it is more likely that unchallanged claims lead to mistakes?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jul 20 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jul 20 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats the best thing i have heard in this thread, yet. Its true that this simple scientific mechanism is simply a theory wich has never actually been proven.
i´m quite concerned, now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh? Can you elaborate on that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if you take "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." and look at it, you´ll see that it is obviosly a thought loop, since its a claim. so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." and then "The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." aso.
Its something similar to "Shroedingers Cat" wich is an unstable system in itself, that is stable until it gets an external viewer. On this event it restabilizes itself by introducing a new element to the system, the beforementioned viewer. Now that the viewer is no longer external, the problem itself can persist stable, until someone new stumbles upon it. This problem is know as (i think) Schroedingers Friends.
And thats why all this scientific doesn´t work at all. Its just an belief, somthing that you can´t prove, if you are inside the system, but if you are outside the system and try to prove it, you automatically interfere with it and thus become "gobbled up" by it and thus your information becomes insignificant.
Its the same way God, ect works.
Now heres an interesting part: Although we are all inside these systems, we are all experiencing the same results for these things: Scientific methods working, God not directly experiencable, ect. Now does this come from our influence on the persistent system that compensates the new "mass" it has to carry around. Or is it the unchanhable reality itself? Well, only someone outside the system could tell us. But wait, he can´t contact us, without interfering with the system.
So lets think of the two extremes for a moment:
The System is formed, by us, since we are the system. There is one primal principle like, lets say, god in the centre and everyone that knows of it and has ever thought about it is layered around it like layers on an onion. If you think now of these layers, they shroud the center and people who look at it from outside, will not necessarily see it, but a distorted image. Lets say, there is a god, existant, but everybody that knows of it (has seen, experienced it, ect.) says, there is none, published books about so called proves that he doesn´t exist. Now lets say you live in this world, but never heard of god or anything that goes with it and now want to learn something about it, what will you probably find? Yes, its probably that there is no god. You will join the side of the mass and support that side of the System. But there is a slim chance that you will me god on the street and start believing in him. That way you would´ve changed the system aswell, since you now can bublish books about that god you´ve met. Wich stand against the one of all the other people, so the next one that comes has a better chance to find your side!
That way all people not only reflect the problem of the system, but are a part of it.
On the other hand we could say, that the system is immanent and absolutly true and that you can´t change it. Everyone that comes, sees the problem and gets the same solution about it. He now has the decision if he believes it or not. its his personal choice, what to do with the knowledge, butit does not change the thing at all. God will, or wont exist, even if you believe in him or not, it simply doesn´t matter. You can influence everyone that he doesn´t believe in god and still there he is, laughing at you. Even that you don´t see him, because you don´t believe in him at all.
But in the outcome both systems lead to the same point. Whatever may be the case, if we are part of the system or just accidental bystanders who have their own viewpoint of the problem, it simply doesn´t matter. There is an ultimate truth, but you simply can´t find out. You can never be sure if the thing you hve just seen was the truth or just another layer or just your own interpretation of the reality.
Every argument you can give for or against something is null and void, since its just a personal interpretation of the problem (influenced by others or not) and you are personally not me or anyone else.
Wich brings up another interesting point:
"you are personally not me or anyone else." is just another claim that has to be proven!
The one side says that we are in the same system, thus technically we ARE one, we are connected and it does matter, what the others see, think, feel and say!
On the other side we could really be just unconnected individuals, giving other entities some information, wich is in fact completly irrelevant to them. Isn´t a duality system fun? Think of it what you want ^^
So i leave with these very true word in every notion:
"IF you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edit: **** it.... wow. I hope English isn't your first language. I'm not even going to try to sort through this mockery of a post to refute whatever you said.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It uses belief, because all the data we have collected is based on the "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." claim, wich can´t really be challenged!
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on?
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Jul 20 2005, 03:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Jul 20 2005, 03:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, if you take "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." and look at it, you´ll see that it is obviosly a thought loop, since its a claim. so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." and then "The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not really a loop. All of those "claims" actually mean the same thing. By challenging any one of them and seeing that its true, you challenge all of them and see that it's true.
The whole point of science is that it is a "bottom up" approach. You can take any law/theory/hypothesis and see that it is made up of confirmed knowledge. Not confirmed because of <i>belief</i>, but because the data is reproducable and has been peer reviewed.
Because it is a bottom up approach, it does not use belief in any way. Since it has not yet reached the top (if it ever will), it has nothing to say about it. Science cannot comment on a creator.
A subjective approach (such as religion, or believing that someone is telepathic based purely on anecdotal evidence) is a "top down" approach. Faith is needed here, because there's no way to verify that that belief is actually correct. Facts need to be fitted in accordingly, otherwise you risk the "top" being wrong, and the whole thing collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No he is right and wrong and so are you. He is wrong is making the statements
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." and then "The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because he is taking an axiom and challenging it. The original intent of the meaning, "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." is that this statement is taken at surface value, it is an axiom, a postulate. It is something asserted to be true.
Therefore, you are wrong snidely in saying there are things such as "top" down approaches or "bottom" down approaches because they all rely on the same concepts.
In religion, we assume a higher entity exists. In geometry, we assume that two points make a line.
Science and Religion both make the same assertions. It is completely incorrect to state that science makes more sense than religion. You choose to believe what you wish to believe. In this sense, Pithlit was correct where you are not. By your own definitions, every approach is "top down". This makes no sense, one has to start somewhere and that start is always with an assumption.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 20 2005, 08:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 20 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It uses belief, because all the data we have collected is based on the "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." claim, wich can´t really be challenged!
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Read the post above. Furthermore religion has had plenty of successes; any authority on Antropology will not deny the importance of religion in building up human society into a cohesive form.
And before you say religion has caused wars and human suffering - so has science. But both have done more good than harm so the point is moot.
<!--QuoteBegin-NGE+Jul 20 2005, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jul 20 2005, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Science and Religion both make the same assertions. It is completely incorrect to state that science makes more sense than religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all true. Science doesn't assert anything--it's a method not a body of information. Religion doesn't provide any evidence for it's assertion.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Jul 20 2005, 07:51 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Jul 20 2005, 07:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 07:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 07:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thats the best thing i have heard in this thread, yet. Its true that this simple scientific mechanism is simply a theory wich has never actually been proven.
i´m quite concerned, now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh? Can you elaborate on that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if you take "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." and look at it, you´ll see that it is obviosly a thought loop, since its a claim. so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." and then "The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." aso.
Its something similar to "Shroedingers Cat" wich is an unstable system in itself, that is stable until it gets an external viewer. On this event it restabilizes itself by introducing a new element to the system, the beforementioned viewer. Now that the viewer is no longer external, the problem itself can persist stable, until someone new stumbles upon it. This problem is know as (i think) Schroedingers Friends.
And thats why all this scientific doesn´t work at all. Its just an belief, somthing that you can´t prove, if you are inside the system, but if you are outside the system and try to prove it, you automatically interfere with it and thus become "gobbled up" by it and thus your information becomes insignificant.
Its the same way God, ect works.
Now heres an interesting part: Although we are all inside these systems, we are all experiencing the same results for these things: Scientific methods working, God not directly experiencable, ect. Now does this come from our influence on the persistent system that compensates the new "mass" it has to carry around. Or is it the unchanhable reality itself? Well, only someone outside the system could tell us. But wait, he can´t contact us, without interfering with the system.
So lets think of the two extremes for a moment:
The System is formed, by us, since we are the system. There is one primal principle like, lets say, god in the centre and everyone that knows of it and has ever thought about it is layered around it like layers on an onion. If you think now of these layers, they shroud the center and people who look at it from outside, will not necessarily see it, but a distorted image. Lets say, there is a god, existant, but everybody that knows of it (has seen, experienced it, ect.) says, there is none, published books about so called proves that he doesn´t exist. Now lets say you live in this world, but never heard of god or anything that goes with it and now want to learn something about it, what will you probably find? Yes, its probably that there is no god. You will join the side of the mass and support that side of the System. But there is a slim chance that you will me god on the street and start believing in him. That way you would´ve changed the system aswell, since you now can bublish books about that god you´ve met. Wich stand against the one of all the other people, so the next one that comes has a better chance to find your side!
That way all people not only reflect the problem of the system, but are a part of it.
On the other hand we could say, that the system is immanent and absolutly true and that you can´t change it. Everyone that comes, sees the problem and gets the same solution about it. He now has the decision if he believes it or not. its his personal choice, what to do with the knowledge, butit does not change the thing at all. God will, or wont exist, even if you believe in him or not, it simply doesn´t matter. You can influence everyone that he doesn´t believe in god and still there he is, laughing at you. Even that you don´t see him, because you don´t believe in him at all.
But in the outcome both systems lead to the same point. Whatever may be the case, if we are part of the system or just accidental bystanders who have their own viewpoint of the problem, it simply doesn´t matter. There is an ultimate truth, but you simply can´t find out. You can never be sure if the thing you hve just seen was the truth or just another layer or just your own interpretation of the reality.
Every argument you can give for or against something is null and void, since its just a personal interpretation of the problem (influenced by others or not) and you are personally not me or anyone else.
Wich brings up another interesting point:
"you are personally not me or anyone else." is just another claim that has to be proven!
The one side says that we are in the same system, thus technically we ARE one, we are connected and it does matter, what the others see, think, feel and say!
On the other side we could really be just unconnected individuals, giving other entities some information, wich is in fact completly irrelevant to them. Isn´t a duality system fun? Think of it what you want ^^
So i leave with these very true word in every notion:
"IF you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thank you. You put my argument into the words I couldn't make fall out of my fingertips (yes, fingertips... it's a keyboard, not a microphone <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
It would be like me going up to an atheist and "proving" that God exists. No matter HOW much UNDENIABLE proof I could give, he simply would not believe it. You can't change the mind of a man who's heart is made up.
Just the same, you can't draw blood from a stone.
And I didn't say it was "psionic" powers that let me know my dog was about to attack. I simply said I noticed a "change" in the atmosphere, without knowing why. Like was stated by someone else (didn't check the name, doh) it could have been hormones. But for a chemical "smell" to get to me, across about 10 feet of disturbed air (the A/C and the Fan moving air about) and to saturate the air around me would take a bit longer than that wouldn't it? I think it was just me sub-conciously seeing his body tense in my peripherial vision <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and another thing- I hope I word this right 0o'
Remember the Primary- Gravity, Energy, Strong Force, Weak Force. They all interact to affect everything in the known universe in one way or another.
I'm not the one to explain the four forces... my friend Salem would be better at this as he knows a helluva lot more about Quantum Physics and the Theoretical Sciences than I do.
And bullethead if you give me undeniable proof that god exists, I'll change my mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why would you assume atheists are so closed minded? Oh and this has nothing to do with Pithlit's post (it's a different, and invalid imo, point), his post was such a jumble of crap it's embarassing.
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 21 2005, 02:09 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 21 2005, 02:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 04:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It uses belief, because all the data we have collected is based on the "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." claim, wich can´t really be challenged!
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How did you come to the conclusion that it isn´t based on any belief? Let me show you your own words: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who has ever tried to falsify the scientific principle? You don´t even question it, you say its <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> intrinsically true <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->. Because of what? Because of common sense, you say. But actually there is no think of commin sense, there is only an individual sense, since we are all individuals, right? So this individual sens id basically nothing more than a belief! Common sense is only <b>made up</b> when people gather together and try to find a common denominator for their individual beliefs. Why should something as absolutly, <i>unquestionable</i> truth come out of persons individual belief. Its really not common sense, but common belief, wich is in our society called Religion, i think!
You could also say, that it is the common sense of all believers that god exists. And since it is common sense, they do the same thing as we do with science! We <b><i>don´t</b></i> try to falsify the scientific principle, like we should with every claim, as you stated above, nah, we just try to find simple facts that make it look true, like your Computers and GPS and stuff.
Religios people do exactly the same stuff, they don´t try to falsify god (the religios principle), but find easy facts that support its existance, like the bible, jesus shaped potatoes, near death experiances, ect.
They are both really based on the same thing, an assumption, that was never questioned but brought to life by the beliefs of people. Sine, c´mon the scientific principle HAS to be true, its common sense y´know. If you just think that for yourself for a moment, you´ll notice, how utterly hollow it sounds!
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+Jul 20 2005, 07:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit @ Jul 20 2005, 07:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because otherwise they <b>may</b> turn out to be false. Not challenging claims <b>is more likely</b> to lead to mistakes.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, they may turn out to true from the beginning, too. Why do you believe they could be false?
How do you get the knowledge the it is more likely that unchallanged claims lead to mistakes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's fairly simple.
-----
The universe of discourse is this thread. The only people who exist in this universe are those who have posted. Individuals' names are not just nicknames or aliases; they are their real names in this universe. However, we can't be sure if one member is another.
"Snidely is Snidely." [True.] "Pithlit is Pithlit." [True.] "Nadagast is Nadagast." [True.]
All the statements are true. No harm done. It does not matter if we challenge these statements at all. Let's take another scenario:
"Snidely is Snidely." [True.] "Pithlit is Pithlit." [True.] "Nadagast is NGE." [False.]
If you don't challenge the claims, then we might call or think that Nadagast is, in fact, NGE, which would lead to some confusion. Any further hypothesis based on Nadagast being called NGE would be in trouble. So less mistakes are made.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You could also say, that it is the common sense of all believers that god exists. And since it is common sense, they do the same thing as we do with science! We don´t try to falsify the scientific principle, like we should with every claim, as you stated above, nah, we just try to find simple facts that make it look true, like your Computers and GPS and stuff.
Religios people do exactly the same stuff, they don´t try to falsify god (the religios principle), but find easy facts that support its existance, like the bible, jesus shaped potatoes, near death experiances, ect.
They are both really based on the same thing, an assumption, that was never questioned but brought to life by the beliefs of people. Sine, c´mon the scientific principle HAS to be true, its common sense y´know. If you just think that for yourself for a moment, you´ll notice, how utterly hollow it sounds!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Balderdash. Do you really think the scientific method generated no debate over the centuries? The truth of the matter is that it is a very simple and good practice. And "simple facts that make it look true"? Are you<i> really</i> saying that it's all soooo convenient that "Computers and GPS and stuff" were ever invented, but it doesn't give any weight to the scientific method?
"Religious people"* don't do exactly the same stuff at all. The difference between bottom up and top down is that the bottom up approach starts with the foundations, and builds from there. The top down approach finds a nice looking roof, and works down from there. The bible and various anecdotal evidence aren't exactly compelling.
Never questioned? Scientific hypotheses/theories are <i>always</i> being questioned, especially when other discoveries impact them; science is not a linear movement. It's like a crossword puzzle, with elements touching others. At times, geology, chemistry and biology can meet, and when they do, they can support or contradict each other, causing inquiry. Not only that, but hypotheses must be falsifiable. You cannot produce a scientific hypothesis that is invincible. The literalist Christian God is not a hypothesis.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I use the term reluctantly, since there are a lot of religious scientists, not to mention a lot of plain old religious people who accept science. The two are not mutually exlcusive, and never have been. Please don't hurt me, Aegeri.</span>
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that we (the universe) aren't just some random thing shoved into a giant locker room? (Yes, this is from MIB2)
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that the Multiverse theory is correcet OR incorrect.
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that you are not dreaming you are reading this entire post.
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that Black Holes do not lead to an alternate dimension. (Remember, Stephen Hawking HAS proven that there are at least eleven dimensions)
If you can do 2 of those 4 things, I'll give you an e-brownie of your choice
For the first one: you're asking me to take a top-down approach.
I honestly don't know enough about either multiverse theory or black holes. If I were to try and answer, it wouldn't be scientific, as I do not have the building blocks needed to reach that high.
As for dreaming your post, posting this reply will soon test whether I am dreaming or not. If no-one replies to it, or replies that I'm not responding to a real post, I'll soon know.
Furthermore, three of the four statements are asking me to prove a negative. Prove that dragons <i>don't</i> exist. What are you meant to work with? How can you test this either way? Have fun.
Oh, and "a reasonable doubt" - do you mean reasonable to you?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nadagast+Jul 20 2005, 09:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nadagast @ Jul 20 2005, 09:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-NGE+Jul 20 2005, 08:20 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (NGE @ Jul 20 2005, 08:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Science and Religion both make the same assertions. It is completely incorrect to state that science makes more sense than religion. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not at all true. Science doesn't assert anything--it's a method not a body of information. Religion doesn't provide any evidence for it's assertion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You fail to understand science if you believe that it makes no assertions. Everything starts from something somewhere, and whatever science you are in; you can find these assertions everywhere.
Geometry has its postulates, Algerbra has its axioms, Physics has its laws, etc etc. These are believed to be true because they appear to be true. But no one can actually prove that these postulates, axioms, and laws are always true.
I may be no scientist, but I understand this simple concept, which is why I linked to Einstein... he too, understood how science was limited by today's knowledge and rested off basic assertions. Just like religion.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Comments
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that!
There you go. I challenged the claim that claims should be challenged.
Well, they may turn out to true from the beginning, too.
Why do you believe they could be false?
How do you get the knowledge the it is more likely that unchallanged claims lead to mistakes?
Its true that this simple scientific mechanism is simply a theory wich has never actually been proven.
i´m quite concerned, now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh? Can you elaborate on that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you take "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." and look at it, you´ll see that it is obviosly a thought loop, since its a claim.
so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
and then
"The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
aso.
Its something similar to "Shroedingers Cat" wich is an unstable system in itself, that is stable until it gets an external viewer.
On this event it restabilizes itself by introducing a new element to the system, the beforementioned viewer.
Now that the viewer is no longer external, the problem itself can persist stable, until someone new stumbles upon it.
This problem is know as (i think) Schroedingers Friends.
And thats why all this scientific doesn´t work at all.
Its just an belief, somthing that you can´t prove, if you are inside the system, but if you are outside the system and try to prove it, you automatically interfere with it and thus become "gobbled up" by it and thus your information becomes insignificant.
Its the same way God, ect works.
Now heres an interesting part:
Although we are all inside these systems, we are all experiencing the same results for these things: Scientific methods working, God not directly experiencable, ect.
Now does this come from our influence on the persistent system that compensates the new "mass" it has to carry around. Or is it the unchanhable reality itself?
Well, only someone outside the system could tell us.
But wait, he can´t contact us, without interfering with the system.
So lets think of the two extremes for a moment:
The System is formed, by us, since we are the system. There is one primal principle like, lets say, god in the centre and everyone that knows of it and has ever thought about it is layered around it like layers on an onion.
If you think now of these layers, they shroud the center and people who look at it from outside, will not necessarily see it, but a distorted image.
Lets say, there is a god, existant, but everybody that knows of it (has seen, experienced it, ect.) says, there is none, published books about so called proves that he doesn´t exist.
Now lets say you live in this world, but never heard of god or anything that goes with it and now want to learn something about it, what will you probably find?
Yes, its probably that there is no god. You will join the side of the mass and support that side of the System.
But there is a slim chance that you will me god on the street and start believing in him.
That way you would´ve changed the system aswell, since you now can bublish books about that god you´ve met. Wich stand against the one of all the other people, so the next one that comes has a better chance to find your side!
That way all people not only reflect the problem of the system, but are a part of it.
On the other hand we could say, that the system is immanent and absolutly true and that you can´t change it. Everyone that comes, sees the problem and gets the same solution about it. He now has the decision if he believes it or not. its his personal choice, what to do with the knowledge, butit does not change the thing at all.
God will, or wont exist, even if you believe in him or not, it simply doesn´t matter.
You can influence everyone that he doesn´t believe in god and still there he is, laughing at you. Even that you don´t see him, because you don´t believe in him at all.
But in the outcome both systems lead to the same point.
Whatever may be the case, if we are part of the system or just accidental bystanders who have their own viewpoint of the problem, it simply doesn´t matter.
There is an ultimate truth, but you simply can´t find out.
You can never be sure if the thing you hve just seen was the truth or just another layer or just your own interpretation of the reality.
Every argument you can give for or against something is null and void, since its just a personal interpretation of the problem (influenced by others or not) and you are personally not me or anyone else.
Wich brings up another interesting point:
"you are personally not me or anyone else." is just another claim that has to be proven!
The one side says that we are in the same system, thus technically we ARE one, we are connected and it does matter, what the others see, think, feel and say!
On the other side we could really be just unconnected individuals, giving other entities some information, wich is in fact completly irrelevant to them.
Isn´t a duality system fun? Think of it what you want ^^
So i leave with these very true word in every notion:
"IF you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Edit: **** it.... wow. I hope English isn't your first language. I'm not even going to try to sort through this mockery of a post to refute whatever you said.
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on?
so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
and then
"The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not really a loop. All of those "claims" actually mean the same thing. By challenging any one of them and seeing that its true, you challenge all of them and see that it's true.
The whole point of science is that it is a "bottom up" approach. You can take any law/theory/hypothesis and see that it is made up of confirmed knowledge. Not confirmed because of <i>belief</i>, but because the data is reproducable and has been peer reviewed.
Because it is a bottom up approach, it does not use belief in any way. Since it has not yet reached the top (if it ever will), it has nothing to say about it. Science cannot comment on a creator.
A subjective approach (such as religion, or believing that someone is telepathic based purely on anecdotal evidence) is a "top down" approach. Faith is needed here, because there's no way to verify that that belief is actually correct. Facts need to be fitted in accordingly, otherwise you risk the "top" being wrong, and the whole thing collapses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No he is right and wrong and so are you. He is wrong is making the statements
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
and then
"The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because he is taking an axiom and challenging it. The original intent of the meaning, "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." is that this statement is taken at surface value, it is an axiom, a postulate. It is something asserted to be true.
Therefore, you are wrong snidely in saying there are things such as "top" down approaches or "bottom" down approaches because they all rely on the same concepts.
In religion, we assume a higher entity exists.
In geometry, we assume that two points make a line.
Science and Religion both make the same assertions. It is completely incorrect to state that science makes more sense than religion. You choose to believe what you wish to believe. In this sense, Pithlit was correct where you are not. By your own definitions, every approach is "top down". This makes no sense, one has to start somewhere and that start is always with an assumption.
"We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality."
- Albert Einstien
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Read the post above. Furthermore religion has had plenty of successes; any authority on Antropology will not deny the importance of religion in building up human society into a cohesive form.
And before you say religion has caused wars and human suffering - so has science. But both have done more good than harm so the point is moot.
Not at all true. Science doesn't assert anything--it's a method not a body of information. Religion doesn't provide any evidence for it's assertion.
Its true that this simple scientific mechanism is simply a theory wich has never actually been proven.
i´m quite concerned, now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Uh? Can you elaborate on that? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you take "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." and look at it, you´ll see that it is obviosly a thought loop, since its a claim.
so i could say
"The claim ""Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
and then
"The claim "The claim "Claims must be challenged to verify their validity." must be challenged to verify its validity." must be challenged to verify its validity."
aso.
Its something similar to "Shroedingers Cat" wich is an unstable system in itself, that is stable until it gets an external viewer.
On this event it restabilizes itself by introducing a new element to the system, the beforementioned viewer.
Now that the viewer is no longer external, the problem itself can persist stable, until someone new stumbles upon it.
This problem is know as (i think) Schroedingers Friends.
And thats why all this scientific doesn´t work at all.
Its just an belief, somthing that you can´t prove, if you are inside the system, but if you are outside the system and try to prove it, you automatically interfere with it and thus become "gobbled up" by it and thus your information becomes insignificant.
Its the same way God, ect works.
Now heres an interesting part:
Although we are all inside these systems, we are all experiencing the same results for these things: Scientific methods working, God not directly experiencable, ect.
Now does this come from our influence on the persistent system that compensates the new "mass" it has to carry around. Or is it the unchanhable reality itself?
Well, only someone outside the system could tell us.
But wait, he can´t contact us, without interfering with the system.
So lets think of the two extremes for a moment:
The System is formed, by us, since we are the system. There is one primal principle like, lets say, god in the centre and everyone that knows of it and has ever thought about it is layered around it like layers on an onion.
If you think now of these layers, they shroud the center and people who look at it from outside, will not necessarily see it, but a distorted image.
Lets say, there is a god, existant, but everybody that knows of it (has seen, experienced it, ect.) says, there is none, published books about so called proves that he doesn´t exist.
Now lets say you live in this world, but never heard of god or anything that goes with it and now want to learn something about it, what will you probably find?
Yes, its probably that there is no god. You will join the side of the mass and support that side of the System.
But there is a slim chance that you will me god on the street and start believing in him.
That way you would´ve changed the system aswell, since you now can bublish books about that god you´ve met. Wich stand against the one of all the other people, so the next one that comes has a better chance to find your side!
That way all people not only reflect the problem of the system, but are a part of it.
On the other hand we could say, that the system is immanent and absolutly true and that you can´t change it. Everyone that comes, sees the problem and gets the same solution about it. He now has the decision if he believes it or not. its his personal choice, what to do with the knowledge, butit does not change the thing at all.
God will, or wont exist, even if you believe in him or not, it simply doesn´t matter.
You can influence everyone that he doesn´t believe in god and still there he is, laughing at you. Even that you don´t see him, because you don´t believe in him at all.
But in the outcome both systems lead to the same point.
Whatever may be the case, if we are part of the system or just accidental bystanders who have their own viewpoint of the problem, it simply doesn´t matter.
There is an ultimate truth, but you simply can´t find out.
You can never be sure if the thing you hve just seen was the truth or just another layer or just your own interpretation of the reality.
Every argument you can give for or against something is null and void, since its just a personal interpretation of the problem (influenced by others or not) and you are personally not me or anyone else.
Wich brings up another interesting point:
"you are personally not me or anyone else." is just another claim that has to be proven!
The one side says that we are in the same system, thus technically we ARE one, we are connected and it does matter, what the others see, think, feel and say!
On the other side we could really be just unconnected individuals, giving other entities some information, wich is in fact completly irrelevant to them.
Isn´t a duality system fun? Think of it what you want ^^
So i leave with these very true word in every notion:
"IF you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem!" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you. You put my argument into the words I couldn't make fall out of my fingertips (yes, fingertips... it's a keyboard, not a microphone <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
It would be like me going up to an atheist and "proving" that God exists. No matter HOW much UNDENIABLE proof I could give, he simply would not believe it. You can't change the mind of a man who's heart is made up.
Just the same, you can't draw blood from a stone.
And I didn't say it was "psionic" powers that let me know my dog was about to attack. I simply said I noticed a "change" in the atmosphere, without knowing why. Like was stated by someone else (didn't check the name, doh) it could have been hormones. But for a chemical "smell" to get to me, across about 10 feet of disturbed air (the A/C and the Fan moving air about) and to saturate the air around me would take a bit longer than that wouldn't it? I think it was just me sub-conciously seeing his body tense in my peripherial vision <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Oh, and another thing-
I hope I word this right 0o'
Remember the Primary- Gravity, Energy, Strong Force, Weak Force. They all interact to affect everything in the known universe in one way or another.
I'm not the one to explain the four forces... my friend Salem would be better at this as he knows a helluva lot more about Quantum Physics and the Theoretical Sciences than I do.
You mean electromagnetism?
And bullethead if you give me undeniable proof that god exists, I'll change my mind. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> Why would you assume atheists are so closed minded? Oh and this has nothing to do with Pithlit's post (it's a different, and invalid imo, point), his post was such a jumble of crap it's embarassing.
If you take the bottom up argument, you have to verify this claim first and i want to see you do that! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All the data we have collected <b><u>isn't based on <i>any</i> belief.</b></u>
"Claims must be challenged to verify their validity" is really just a simplification of the scientific method which is true because of common sense. Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence. It's <b>intrinsically true</b>. It doesn't mean you'll get the right answer every time but you should hopefully continually get a better one. And it's had lots of successes don't you think? Computers, GPS, space travel, airplanes, cell phones, cars; want me to go on? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How did you come to the conclusion that it isn´t based on any belief?
Let me show you your own words:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hypothesis -> attempt to falsify -> use the model that hasn't been falsified and has lots of supporting evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who has ever tried to falsify the scientific principle?
You don´t even question it, you say its <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> intrinsically true <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->.
Because of what? Because of common sense, you say.
But actually there is no think of commin sense, there is only an individual sense, since we are all individuals, right?
So this individual sens id basically nothing more than a belief!
Common sense is only <b>made up</b> when people gather together and try to find a common denominator for their individual beliefs.
Why should something as absolutly, <i>unquestionable</i> truth come out of persons individual belief.
Its really not common sense, but common belief, wich is in our society called Religion, i think!
You could also say, that it is the common sense of all believers that god exists.
And since it is common sense, they do the same thing as we do with science!
We <b><i>don´t</b></i> try to falsify the scientific principle, like we should with every claim, as you stated above, nah, we just try to find simple facts that make it look true, like your Computers and GPS and stuff.
Religios people do exactly the same stuff, they don´t try to falsify god (the religios principle), but find easy facts that support its existance, like the bible, jesus shaped potatoes, near death experiances, ect.
They are both really based on the same thing, an assumption, that was never questioned but brought to life by the beliefs of people.
Sine, c´mon the scientific principle HAS to be true, its common sense y´know.
If you just think that for yourself for a moment, you´ll notice, how utterly hollow it sounds!
Well, they may turn out to true from the beginning, too.
Why do you believe they could be false?
How do you get the knowledge the it is more likely that unchallanged claims lead to mistakes? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's fairly simple.
-----
The universe of discourse is this thread. The only people who exist in this universe are those who have posted. Individuals' names are not just nicknames or aliases; they are their real names in this universe. However, we can't be sure if one member is another.
"Snidely is Snidely." [True.]
"Pithlit is Pithlit." [True.]
"Nadagast is Nadagast." [True.]
All the statements are true. No harm done. It does not matter if we challenge these statements at all. Let's take another scenario:
"Snidely is Snidely." [True.]
"Pithlit is Pithlit." [True.]
"Nadagast is NGE." [False.]
If you don't challenge the claims, then we might call or think that Nadagast is, in fact, NGE, which would lead to some confusion. Any further hypothesis based on Nadagast being called NGE would be in trouble. So less mistakes are made.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pithlit+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pithlit)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You could also say, that it is the common sense of all believers that god exists.
And since it is common sense, they do the same thing as we do with science!
We don´t try to falsify the scientific principle, like we should with every claim, as you stated above, nah, we just try to find simple facts that make it look true, like your Computers and GPS and stuff.
Religios people do exactly the same stuff, they don´t try to falsify god (the religios principle), but find easy facts that support its existance, like the bible, jesus shaped potatoes, near death experiances, ect.
They are both really based on the same thing, an assumption, that was never questioned but brought to life by the beliefs of people.
Sine, c´mon the scientific principle HAS to be true, its common sense y´know.
If you just think that for yourself for a moment, you´ll notice, how utterly hollow it sounds!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Balderdash. Do you really think the scientific method generated no debate over the centuries? The truth of the matter is that it is a very simple and good practice. And "simple facts that make it look true"? Are you<i> really</i> saying that it's all soooo convenient that "Computers and GPS and stuff" were ever invented, but it doesn't give any weight to the scientific method?
"Religious people"* don't do exactly the same stuff at all. The difference between bottom up and top down is that the bottom up approach starts with the foundations, and builds from there. The top down approach finds a nice looking roof, and works down from there. The bible and various anecdotal evidence aren't exactly compelling.
Never questioned? Scientific hypotheses/theories are <i>always</i> being questioned, especially when other discoveries impact them; science is not a linear movement. It's like a crossword puzzle, with elements touching others. At times, geology, chemistry and biology can meet, and when they do, they can support or contradict each other, causing inquiry. Not only that, but hypotheses must be falsifiable. You cannot produce a scientific hypothesis that is invincible. The literalist Christian God is not a hypothesis.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>I use the term reluctantly, since there are a lot of religious scientists, not to mention a lot of plain old religious people who accept science. The two are not mutually exlcusive, and never have been. Please don't hurt me, Aegeri.</span>
Snidely, here's a mission for you.
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that we (the universe) aren't just some random thing shoved into a giant locker room? (Yes, this is from MIB2)
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that the Multiverse theory is correcet OR incorrect.
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that you are not dreaming you are reading this entire post.
PROVE to me, beyond a REASONABLE doubt, that Black Holes do not lead to an alternate dimension. (Remember, Stephen Hawking HAS proven that there are at least eleven dimensions)
If you can do 2 of those 4 things, I'll give you an e-brownie of your choice
I honestly don't know enough about either multiverse theory or black holes. If I were to try and answer, it wouldn't be scientific, as I do not have the building blocks needed to reach that high.
As for dreaming your post, posting this reply will soon test whether I am dreaming or not. If no-one replies to it, or replies that I'm not responding to a real post, I'll soon know.
Furthermore, three of the four statements are asking me to prove a negative. Prove that dragons <i>don't</i> exist. What are you meant to work with? How can you test this either way? Have fun.
Oh, and "a reasonable doubt" - do you mean reasonable to you?
Not at all true. Science doesn't assert anything--it's a method not a body of information. Religion doesn't provide any evidence for it's assertion. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You fail to understand science if you believe that it makes no assertions. Everything starts from something somewhere, and whatever science you are in; you can find these assertions everywhere.
Geometry has its postulates, Algerbra has its axioms, Physics has its laws, etc etc. These are believed to be true because they appear to be true. But no one can actually prove that these postulates, axioms, and laws are always true.
I may be no scientist, but I understand this simple concept, which is why I linked to Einstein... he too, understood how science was limited by today's knowledge and rested off basic assertions. Just like religion.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein