{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/11/2015 7:29:50 AM
1
I understand perfectly that the scientific community aren't claiming this as fact. Its just an idea, and one that might not ever yield any results because it might be impossible to test. That's it. It might be correct or it might not, but at least scientists are being [b]honest[/b]. They are not claiming it has been proven. No one is.
English
-
I know they're not claiming it as fact, because they have no balls! look dude, its simple. science can only theorize down to the big bang, to even discuss anything beyond that is just unscientific. Anything beyond that is PURE BULL which is pulled out of their ASSES! and as i said before, the only reason they even poke their noses into the idea is because they are desperate to be involved in something that actually matters. Why else would they entertain an untestable idea? those greedy bastards probably think they can get some of that religion money if they preach their unfounded beliefs to enough blind faithful followers like yourself.
-
Damn dude you are incredibly dense.
-
look, i see that we will not reach an understanding. although i have enjoyed our conversation. ive talked to plenty of close minded people before so i know a lost cause when i see one. i just hope that the dogma you follow blindly doesnt lead your any more astray. and remember, its never too late.
-
Hahaha what delicious irony. If you can name one thing I believe in that doesn't have substantial supporting evidence then I'll accept your accusation that I blindly follow dogma.
-
im glad you enjoy the taste of my irony. i dont deny that the dogma you follow doesnt provide 'substantial supporting evidence' if you choose to see it that way. you gotta believe in something right? whether it be thetan testing done by scientologists, radio carbon dating on fossils, or bhuddist monks investigating the mind through meditation. you can find evidence for anything if you look hard enough and close your mind to other possibilities. i may not know your particular dogma but i know it leaves you blind to the truth!
-
If anything my worldview leaves me pen to the truth, not blind to it. I have not decided that gods might not exist, or that the multiverse is an accurate description. I reserve judgement on both until a time when we're not just making [educated] guesses. There is no dogma for me, only honest and open enquiry.
-
if your worldview is science based (which i think is probably a fair guess) then it means you disregard anything that is not physical (immaterial) or anything beyond human understanding. you say you have not decided against god but you have. you know of god but do not accept god, you will never have any more 'scientific' evidence for god than you do now because god isnt an iphone, it just doesnt work like that. so what are you waiting for? science cant probe beyond the big bang into non existence (obviously) and god isnt about coming down here and telling us what to do (or what would be the point?) so what are you gonna do? just walk around your whole life undecided like the answer isnt clearly right in front of your face?
-
Basically, yes. I'll only reach a conclusion when I have what I deem good reason to do so. I remain an open minded skeptic on whether aliens or gods exist, on whether there might be a bigfoot, on the existence of ghosts, the multiverse and so on. Any of these might be real, but none have enough supporting evidence for me to believe in them. You can act like this is an unreasonable position but it isn't.
-
Edited by Jet909: 9/11/2015 11:05:16 AMok mister reasonable i'll hold you to that look at it this way no one can 100 percent prove evolution, right? its just the greatest explanation for complex life ever conceived and it fits what all of the data tells us. in no way is this proof, it is just accepted that this is the best theory we have and we might as well treat it as truth because it is for all intensive purposes but we reserve the right to keep an open mind in case we discover some new evidence that makes us reevaluate our ideas. the same practice is used for most theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. i assume you do this as well. you accept these ideas as 'soft facts' because they fit into our understanding of 'the natural world'. but this is where you become closed minded because i can do the same thing offer the best existing theory which explains all available evidence but instead of going with it until a more complete theory comes along like you would with some others, you shun the idea because you've been taught by the liberal media to discriminate against certain ideas automatically.
-
"Mister reasonable". I like how you use that as if it is a criticism. The problem here is you can't just go with an idea being most likely simply because we don't yet have other ideas. That is classic 'god of the gaps'. The difference between me accepting evolution as the best explanation whilst not accepting god as an explanation is that we have a mountain of independently verifiable data behind evolution and none behind god. They couldn't be further apart in that sense. As for the rant about liberal media, you're just throwing out ransom accusations based on nothing. You have no idea what I read.
-
oh lolz, you got me with that mister reasonable quip. i would like to say that it was tongue in cheek. (: we have gotten to the point where usually the discussion can go no further because it becomes an argument about semantics. 'god of the gaps' such an easy term to throw at someone. a man can say that god is what keeps our feet on the ground Einstein says that its curved space, is the first guy wrong? i would say it depends what the guy means as god. to say god created the universe is not saying we will never learn understand the act of creation. it is completely possible to hold an idea in your mind (and soul) without it taking the place of a different type of understanding. you are free to love jesus and be loved by jesus while still learning to understand the intricacies of his greatest gift to us (existence) i really hope youre beginning to understand.
-
and about the previous post, the liberal media accusation was made because your track for thinking fits the pattern of those liberal fools who are so quick to jerk off scientists just because its fashionable. maybe im wrong, but you seem like you'd go with the physicists multiverse theory (or something scientifically similar) way before you would go with the idea that is seen portrayed as stupid in popular culture. i hope im wrong but youd probably go with the sciencey sounding idea even thought it doesnt explain anything (Where would a multiverse come from?) thats my problem, that people like you would rather go along with an inferior explanation simply because of cultural bias, peer pressure, or whatever petty bull that keeps you from thinking clearly.
-
You're just rambling now.
-
i love talking about this stuff. it does make me sad how rare it is to find someone who is willing to having a polite discussion about topics like this in which ideas are articulately argued and debated on the merit of the point without resorting to personal comments. i mean rambling? i know its not my doctoral thesis but rambling seems like an exaggeration. next time i'll try to explain the origins of the universe in ten words or less.
