Translation: I got nothing, but will make one last idiot and non-substantive ad hominem and then tacitly admit defeat. :biggrin:
I really find it hard to believe you're being serious here...in either case, knock yourself out
Well you are using terms like logical and scientific and applying them to the believe and or disbelief of religion. But religions are inherently illogical, they contain, miracles and magic that require no explanation or logic. So how do you reconcile the two.
I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.
Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?
I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.
Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?
The Unitarians I know have already taken this position
Faith isn't necessary for the Scientific Process. There is Acceptance of Tested Theory, but that's not Faith. There is going out on a limb with a Hypothesis, but that's an Intellectually derived Idea with intent to Test for veracity, not Faith.
I wasn't aware that "Acceptance of Tested Theory" was a proper name.
In any case, I think words failed here. I would never argue that religious faith has a place science, in short my use of 'faith' is short hand for your longer winded rebuttal above.
The dictionary definition of "faith" doesn't help me out here, since it's technically definied as something spiritual. I just find it shorter to say that "I have enough faith in an idea to bother testing", instead of "The preponderence of evidence seems to indicate a general rule that I should develop a test for."
I find the idea difficult to entertain. Even in the scientific process a degree of faith is needed to pursue an idea. I'd rather place my effort where the preponderance of evidence exists.
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
Albert Einstein
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
Big Al to the E
Of course, I'm cheating a bit because this whole discussion is about ideas that exist in presence of no supporting data, but to be blunt, at that point aren't we just making things up? Entertaining multiple ideas at once is good, but what does it gain us?
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two seemingly opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." F Scott Fitzgerald
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
Al to the E.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Al Onestone
Beware of your seeming certainty. Have you never heard of the wisdom of "thinking outside the box"? It has been reduced to a cliche by business drones, but it contains powerful wisdom.
Don't get hung up on a question of simultaneity, he's more talking about not restricting your intellectual SCOPE with your a priori prejudices, which is what true believers and ideological drones do.
You can easily spot them because they get royally upset when you question their beliefs, and soon resort to emotional attacks and denials.
I'm open to different ideas in arenas where there aren't already established facts, and alternative explanations when we're not sure. Is that it?
rofl. if you edited out the names of yours and malak's posts, I wouldnt be able to tell them apart. that is NOT a good thing
Science will reveal truth in due time, OR some being will come down, and tell it like it is. Until that happens, it's all just fruitless guessing.
Perhaps 'dismiss' was not the right word. What I mean is that I wouldn't want to waste time entertaining them.Alternatively one could entertain the question of why one seeks to dismiss anything in the first place.
I'm not looking to dismiss theories, am still plenty entertained by the pursuit of learning about new ones that I've never heard before.
The downselection process, wherein I begin culling and dismissing theories, is phase two and its scheduled to be my top priority once I'm dead
I'm immensly confident the answer will have then become self-evident post-haste!
...
Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Until he comes down and convinces me, I will not waste my time with it. If he does indeed exist and wants to punish me for not believing someone else's stories, he can go ahead and do it. And I will laugh in his face the entire time.Science isn't in the business of revealing God, and someone did come down to tell it like it is. He got murdered for it. The world is not willing to accept it.