"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
"...arguments and examples that are available to all..."
What does that mean? Arguments and examples that are available to all?

Clint wrote:

<quoted text> It means examples of the presuppositions are availble online for all to see.I don't see the need to reference them nor to continue a dialogue that was tiresome by the second post.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words you've got nothing but would rather not admit it.

Clint wrote:

<quoted text> In other words I don't feel any need to validate myself for anyone nor do I gain pleasure from posting repetitive arguments thousand of times.If you feel you've won some minor skirmish that fills your breast with pride,so be it.My ego can withstand your needs.

15th Dalai Lama wrote:

<quoted text>
You're talking about that invisible spirit thingie, aren't you?

Clint wrote:

<quoted text> You were doing fine until the last sentence.

Clint wrote:

<quoted text> It means examples of the presuppositions are availble online for all to see.I don't see the need to reference them nor to continue a dialogue that was tiresome by the second post.

Clint wrote:

My ego can withstand your needs.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>Other universes technically. We already exist in at least 5 dimensions ourselves, possibly more.

CTEd wrote, " i'm talking simple time travel with a single universe isn't really possible. Certainly not to change anything as it would remove the impetus for the trip in the first place."

Possibly, unless like I said, your trip was "meant" to happen, and was already a part of your universe's history.

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>You're kidding right?

You have absolutely no understanding of science nor the scientific method. If you're still in school, pay attention to your middle school science classes and it will make sense. If you are an adult, then all I can say is I'm sorry you education was so poor.

Most scientists carefully avoid the word “truth” when discussing science, preferring instead to use “accurate” in reference to data. In science, there is only evidence
that supports a hypothesis.

For example, the hypothesis that the sun comes up every day has been supported by observable evidence for all of recorded history. Scientists no longer attempt to disprove that hypothesis, for the simple reason that after thousands of years of observation, no one has yet seen otherwise. The hypothesis is consistent with all of the data that has been collected, and it is now used to make different predictions. When a hypothesis meets
these criteria, it has become a scientific theory.

You may hear someone apply the word “theory” to a speculative idea, as in the expression “only a theory.” But a scientific theory differs from speculation, because it offers valid, testable predictions. Untestable ideas do not belong in science.

The predictive power of a scientific theory has been tested many times, and in many ways, and researchers have yet to find evidence that disproves it. However, a theory cannot be tested under every circumstance, so scientists do not ever assume that a theory is infallible.

For example, based on the theory that the sun comes up every day, the prediction that the sun will come up again tomorrow seems like a good one. Yet, a scientist sees tomorrow as an opportunity for that prediction to fail. Like every other theory, the theory that the sun comes up every day will always be open to revision.

When you can paraphrase this idea with your own words, you might be ready to learn something about science.(Look up inductive reasoning for further reading.)

humble brother wrote:

This whole topic is awkwardly silly. There is no vs. between science and religion.
Science deals with the HOW while religion deals with the WHO. There is no dispute.

Drew Smith wrote:

How do we know that there even *is* a "who"?

humble brother wrote:

You don't, until you have found him. From the perspective of philosophy this is logically possible.

humble brother wrote:

There are very many things that you can never get to know. As a simple example you can never get to know how gravity works, it is logically impossible.

Drew Smith wrote:

How do we know that there even *is* a "who"?
<quoted text>
It's also logically possible that the entire Universe was created Last Thursday, but is it worthwhile considering that possibility?

Drew Smith wrote:

How is it logically impossible?

humble brother wrote:

How do you think it is logically possible that the universe was created last thursday?

humble brother wrote:

Due to the fact that the natural phenomenon itself for which the term gravity is used is not observable. Only the effects of the natural phenomenon are observable.

The pet whisperer wrote:

The sun might not come up tomorrow, but 1+1 will always equal 2., only the morons of evolution believe it can change. The evolutionary fairy told them so.