Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who are those "who consider science an all-powerful unlimited source of truth?" You're the only one I have heard use the phrase "all-powerful unlimited source of truth." (Well, other than some Christians referring to God and/or the Bible.)
You think you understand how and why life evolved. You think science is perfectly capable of understanding, some day, how and why life began. You think the brain is largely understood, and will be completely understood pretty soon. You think medical science will find cures for cancer and mental illness. You don't see anything preventing science from eventually understanding everything.
And it could be true. Probably more going for it than Biblegod which has logical and evidential reasons to doubt that it really exists.
But it still seems to me that it relies on Faith -claims based on filling in unknowns or at least undisprovens combined with common human beliefs which might be true (soul) or might be a human instinctive superstition. Until a soul, a cosmic consciousness or any other thing that has no valid evidence (or we'd have heard of it) is put on a compelling evidential basis, credibility must be withheld, and at best it can only be put with the other religious or quasi - religious faith - claims. Of which there are more than you can shake a stick at
I think it's sensible for you to reserve judgement and not have a strong opinion on this either way.
There is plenty of evidence, as I said, but devout atheists can always find convoluted ways to explain it away.
But I have no problem with people being scientific and skeptical agnostics. I am kind of agnostic myself. However, I am aware of some of the extensive evidence from near death experiences, out of body experiences, parapsychology, nearly universal human experiences, and my own personal experiences. So I don't really have the kind of doubts I used to have.
However, I am skeptical about most specific claims that people make on spiritual subjects. I don't think we are capable of knowing very much about higher levels.
You think you understand how and why life evolved. You think science is perfectly capable of understanding, some day, how and why life began. You think the brain is largely understood, and will be completely understood pretty soon. You think medical science will find cures for cancer and mental illness. You don't see anything preventing science from eventually understanding everything.
You certainly like to speak for other people.
My feeling is that people who have such a strong dislike for science just personally don't like to feel constrained in any way. If there are no facts and all there is is mystery and doubt then maybe there are no rules or no judging or no right and wrong. Certainly nothing that could ever be proven...because NOTHING can be proven, right?
So YOUR way is always the right way. And you can constantly change YOUR way to suit whatever you want.
Who are those "who consider science an all-powerful unlimited source of truth?" You're the only one I have heard use the phrase "all-powerful unlimited source of truth." (Well, other than some Christians referring to God and/or the Bible.)
Instead of answering my question, you posted this stuff:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
You think you understand how and why life evolved.
No, I don't know much high level science. I leave that to scientists. Why did you think I do?
Quote:
You think science is perfectly capable of understanding, some day, how and why life began.
How is it you know what I think? I have not given much thought to how or why life began. Lie exists. That's good enough for me.
Quote:
You think the brain is largely understood, and will be completely understood pretty soon.
Why do you say what I think? I know virtually nothing about neurology. Not even enough to comment on how much is understood? What made you think I did?
Quote:
You think medical science will find cures for cancer and mental illness.
I don't know how you know what is in my mind, but you're wrong. I know medical science has used DNA studies to greatly improve treatment of breast cancer. Cancer isn't just one thing, so there is no such thing as a "cure for cancer." I don't know much about mental illness either, and can't think of a single thing I've said that would lead you to believe I did.
Quote:
You don't see anything preventing science from eventually understanding everything.
What did I say to make you think this?
--------------------
Now, do you want to answer the question about the "all-powerful unlimited source of truth?"
The science most of you are talking about I believe is forever changing, and I don't buy into much of it. Great for the books and the scientists and many other things, but not for the way I conduct my life. I've gotten past believing in any god stuff so what I do believe I change some of the thinking for what works for me.
They don't say science is "all-knowing." They say it is "self-correcting." And they say there is nothing preventing from answering all questions eventually.
So same difference, different words.
1. There is a huge difference between "all knowing" (which would never need correction), and self-correcting (which occurs over time). If "they" (am I a "they", after all I have two degrees in the natural sciences?) say science will figure out everything eventually...then I'm sure you can show us some quotes to back that claim up. And even if there are oddball scientists out there...and there are...I'll stack science's oddballs against christian oddballs anytime...and you'd win. Shall we start with Jim Jones. How many would you like to me list.
2. No, it isn't the "same difference". Does your screen name reflect self-editorializing of your opinions?
You think you understand how and why life evolved. You think science is perfectly capable of understanding, some day, how and why life began. You think the brain is largely understood, and will be completely understood pretty soon. You think medical science will find cures for cancer and mental illness. You don't see anything preventing science from eventually understanding everything.
No, we don't think that. That's why it's till called the theory of "the unmentionable".
It's really a shame when someone starts with a false premise...in this case you...and then continues to post the same false premises post after post. Sort of like...oh, never mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
