Error in Rigour

[Deliya]

Error in Rigour
by
Amitakh Stanford
4th September 2010

Science has been elevated as the sole authority to explain the workings of the world and to decide what should and should not be taken seriously. Science determines what should be believed, what is superstitious, and what is nonsense. In a sense, science has become the self-proclaimed judge of everything. From this vaunted position, science has imposed its will on everything, and spread its tentacles into politics, religion, education, culture, medicine, law, and practically every other field.

Under the “rule of science”, anything that is supernatural or metaphysical is often scoffed at or outright scorned. The scientific rulers have encouraged sceptics to belittle various phenomena, such as: UFO sightings, alien encounters, religious experiences, spirit communications, ghosts, astral beings, apparitions, inter-dimensional beings, reincarnation, past lives, continuation of consciousness, entity possessions, clairvoyance, clairaudience, prophecy, general psychic abilities, and anything else that does not fit neatly into scientific dogma.

The elevation of science has been so effective that people are very fearful of its ridicule, scorn and rejection. Sceptics are confidently bolstered; they are proud that they alone can judge what is ridiculous and nonsense and what is true and acceptable. Sceptics are so self-assured in their positions as the judges of everything that they outwardly display an air of arrogance and contempt. Almost everything has to be subjected to the Scientific Inquisition, which is not so unlike the Spanish Inquisitions – knowledge and wisdom are their victims, too often suppressed and censored by the ignorant and the arrogant. In extreme cases, the sceptics proclaim that “science is never wrong!”

Those who study science have not always been referred to as “scientists”. Until the 1830s, the discipline was known as natural philosophy, and individuals who studied it called themselves “natural philosophers”. The change in nomenclature allowed “scientists” to disassociate themselves from theoretical philosophers.

Science presents its cases as if they were all based upon hard, empirical evidence. This is misleading. If every scientific theory were called a philosophical concept, everyone would be on guard as to its reliability and accuracy. Whilst scientists have gathered genuine data on some subjects, and conducted experiments to determine properties and “laws” of physics and other disciplines, they have also extrapolated, surmised, opined, and outright guessed in many other instances to develop various “scientific” theories about the composition of the universe and where humans stand in relation to everything in it.

The theories are presented repeatedly, and with such ardent fervour, that everyone forgets they have little or no empirical basis. Even the inconsistent theories are presented as facts. For instance, modern cosmology, which began in the 1920s, postulates the theory that the universe is expanding. From this hypothesis, cosmologists have theorised that the universe began with a big bang, a convulsive explosion. An alternative view is the steady-state theory, which asserts that the universe has no origin, but is expanding based on the continual formation of new matter. The theories are contradictory. One takes the position of convulsive evolution, while the other emphasises gradual growth and development.

Scientists of today will use the premises of these contradictory theories to mix and match their particular guesses at how the universe operates. For example, Darwinian evolutionary theory requires vast time-lines to be feasible. Therefore, the Darwinian view requires that the Earth be very old and to have gradually developed. On the other hand, another scientific theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a catastrophic event wiped them out. This goes to show that the accepted scientific theories are not always based on consistent premises. It is often the case in science that the convenient theory becomes the accepted theory.

History has shown how many huge mistakes natural philosophers have made. The flat-Earth theory was believed for millennia, as was the theory that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it. Copernicus disproved the likelihood that the Earth was the centre of the universe, instead offering the alternative view that it is a subservient satellite of the sun in our solar system. Even today, most people are unaware that what Copernicus presented is a theory. As more and more evidence emerges, it becomes more and more likely that Copernicus was correct. With regard to the two main theories of the origin of the universe, they are rudimentary hypotheses that should not even be elevated to the level of theories. Yet, the big bang is presented as though it is an absolute fact; Darwin's theory of evolution is dealt with in the same manner.

Many people want to accept the scientific explanation of the universe because they disbelieve the religious philosophy and dogma regarding Creation. A typical religious creation account is found in the Torah, which is part of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. That account of creation was subjected to tremendous rigour by religious scholars and natural philosophers. It was accepted by many who went through this rigorous study that the Earth was approximately 6,000 years old. The rigour employed was referred to by many as one of the most rigorous endeavours of the pre-Renaissance era. Proponents of the 6,000 year-old Earth included Elijah, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, among others. Even the esteemed natural philosopher, Isaac Newton, concluded that the religious scholars were essentially correct; the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

Much of the 6,000 year-old Earth belief can be blamed on the King James Version of the Bible, which included annotations in the margins to put all the dates together for people to apply rigour in testing biblical dates for creation. Some extreme religious philosophers, who echoed the marginal annotations in the King James Version of the Bible, claimed that Creation occurred on Sunday at noon, on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C.

Science prides itself on employing rigour, which means that science has tested many of its theories over and over. The problem is that the rigour can be based on flawed premises, be flawed methodologically, or both. There was immense rigour applied to the geocentric model of the Earth, and it was fully accepted by religious and natural philosophers until Copernicus refuted it. Now, the same type of rigour is applied to the theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system. If, in the future, someone were to unequivocally refute the Copernican theory, all of the rigour in proving it would have to be abandoned. Such is the state of scientific discoveries that people would accept the new theory and laugh at the old.

Science has presented us with the theory that carbon emissions are significant contributors to global warming. It has presented us with many scientific evaluations of the data to prove this position, and the scientific consensus is that carbon emissions must be reduced to check global warming. The raw data on which scientists have based this conclusion is not readily available; it is secreted in the United Kingdom. Some scientists have been proven to have intentionally corrupted the data base, and others have been shown to have intentionally manipulated the data to support the carbon emissions theory. Instead of scientists being aghast at the fraud, many have rallied around the theory, and asserted that the science behind the theory is good and credible because such immense rigour has been applied to the theory that it must be correct. Therefore, they argue, there is scientific proof that carbon emissions are significantly responsible for global warming and that it is critical to put a price on carbon and to pass an ETS. The geocentric model and the Creation account had equal rigour applied to them. For now, both theories are hopelessly wrong.

A Scot named James Hutton devised a theory that everything on Earth is very old, and that the planet has been gradually shaped by erosion and occasionally rearranged by convulsive events. His analysis has provided the basis for dating everything on the Earth, including the planet itself. People now confidently parrot that the Earth is four billion years old, that certain dinosaurs walked the planet so many million years ago, and humans evolved into homo-sapiens so many tens of thousands of years ago, and so on. The believers claim that these dates are based upon scientific postulates, and that the results have been subjected to rigour, therefore they are correct.

The hypothesis of plate tectonics describing the formation of continents has been subjected to such scientific rigour that the theory of continental drift is readily accepted and parroted by many. The hypothesis of a molten-core Earth is equally accepted, whilst the sceptical “judges” have scoffed at the theory of the hollow Earth.

Doctors and psychiatrists who believe in metaphysical concepts and experiences should not be threatened by their respective licensing boards. Neither should lawyers or politicians be disadvantaged by acknowledging alien encounters. Psychics and those sensitive to metaphysical things should not be deemed mentally disturbed just because they can sense or “see” things that others do not.

Although science has improved many aspects of living by providing technology in many fields, its unsubstantiated theories should be treated much like religious beliefs. There is no absolute proof or disproof of them, or they would be facts, not theories. People should not be subjected to ridicule for their beliefs just because their beliefs do not fit scientifically prescribed scrutiny.

[groktruth]

Error in Rigour
by
Amitakh Stanford
4th September 2010

Science has been elevated as the sole authority to explain the workings of the world and to decide what should and should not be taken seriously. Science determines what should be believed, what is superstitious, and what is nonsense. In a sense, science has become the self-proclaimed judge of everything. From this vaunted position, science has imposed its will on everything, and spread its tentacles into politics, religion, education, culture, medicine, law, and practically every other field.

Under the “rule of science”, anything that is supernatural or metaphysical is often scoffed at or outright scorned. The scientific rulers have encouraged sceptics to belittle various phenomena, such as: UFO sightings, alien encounters, religious experiences, spirit communications, ghosts, astral beings, apparitions, inter-dimensional beings, reincarnation, past lives, continuation of consciousness, entity possessions, clairvoyance, clairaudience, prophecy, general psychic abilities, and anything else that does not fit neatly into scientific dogma.

The elevation of science has been so effective that people are very fearful of its ridicule, scorn and rejection. Sceptics are confidently bolstered; they are proud that they alone can judge what is ridiculous and nonsense and what is true and acceptable. Sceptics are so self-assured in their positions as the judges of everything that they outwardly display an air of arrogance and contempt. Almost everything has to be subjected to the Scientific Inquisition, which is not so unlike the Spanish Inquisitions – knowledge and wisdom are their victims, too often suppressed and censored by the ignorant and the arrogant. In extreme cases, the sceptics proclaim that “science is never wrong!”

Those who study science have not always been referred to as “scientists”. Until the 1830s, the discipline was known as natural philosophy, and individuals who studied it called themselves “natural philosophers”. The change in nomenclature allowed “scientists” to disassociate themselves from theoretical philosophers.

Science presents its cases as if they were all based upon hard, empirical evidence. This is misleading. If every scientific theory were called a philosophical concept, everyone would be on guard as to its reliability and accuracy. Whilst scientists have gathered genuine data on some subjects, and conducted experiments to determine properties and “laws” of physics and other disciplines, they have also extrapolated, surmised, opined, and outright guessed in many other instances to develop various “scientific” theories about the composition of the universe and where humans stand in relation to everything in it.

The theories are presented repeatedly, and with such ardent fervour, that everyone forgets they have little or no empirical basis. Even the inconsistent theories are presented as facts. For instance, modern cosmology, which began in the 1920s, postulates the theory that the universe is expanding. From this hypothesis, cosmologists have theorised that the universe began with a big bang, a convulsive explosion. An alternative view is the steady-state theory, which asserts that the universe has no origin, but is expanding based on the continual formation of new matter. The theories are contradictory. One takes the position of convulsive evolution, while the other emphasises gradual growth and development.

Scientists of today will use the premises of these contradictory theories to mix and match their particular guesses at how the universe operates. For example, Darwinian evolutionary theory requires vast time-lines to be feasible. Therefore, the Darwinian view requires that the Earth be very old and to have gradually developed. On the other hand, another scientific theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a catastrophic event wiped them out. This goes to show that the accepted scientific theories are not always based on consistent premises. It is often the case in science that the convenient theory becomes the accepted theory.

History has shown how many huge mistakes natural philosophers have made. The flat-Earth theory was believed for millennia, as was the theory that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it. Copernicus disproved the likelihood that the Earth was the centre of the universe, instead offering the alternative view that it is a subservient satellite of the sun in our solar system. Even today, most people are unaware that what Copernicus presented is a theory. As more and more evidence emerges, it becomes more and more likely that Copernicus was correct. With regard to the two main theories of the origin of the universe, they are rudimentary hypotheses that should not even be elevated to the level of theories. Yet, the big bang is presented as though it is an absolute fact; Darwin's theory of evolution is dealt with in the same manner.

Many people want to accept the scientific explanation of the universe because they disbelieve the religious philosophy and dogma regarding Creation. A typical religious creation account is found in the Torah, which is part of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. That account of creation was subjected to tremendous rigour by religious scholars and natural philosophers. It was accepted by many who went through this rigorous study that the Earth was approximately 6,000 years old. The rigour employed was referred to by many as one of the most rigorous endeavours of the pre-Renaissance era. Proponents of the 6,000 year-old Earth included Elijah, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, among others. Even the esteemed natural philosopher, Isaac Newton, concluded that the religious scholars were essentially correct; the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

Much of the 6,000 year-old Earth belief can be blamed on the King James Version of the Bible, which included annotations in the margins to put all the dates together for people to apply rigour in testing biblical dates for creation. Some extreme religious philosophers, who echoed the marginal annotations in the King James Version of the Bible, claimed that Creation occurred on Sunday at noon, on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C.

Science prides itself on employing rigour, which means that science has tested many of its theories over and over. The problem is that the rigour can be based on flawed premises, be flawed methodologically, or both. There was immense rigour applied to the geocentric model of the Earth, and it was fully accepted by religious and natural philosophers until Copernicus refuted it. Now, the same type of rigour is applied to the theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system. If, in the future, someone were to unequivocally refute the Copernican theory, all of the rigour in proving it would have to be abandoned. Such is the state of scientific discoveries that people would accept the new theory and laugh at the old.

Science has presented us with the theory that carbon emissions are significant contributors to global warming. It has presented us with many scientific evaluations of the data to prove this position, and the scientific consensus is that carbon emissions must be reduced to check global warming. The raw data on which scientists have based this conclusion is not readily available; it is secreted in the United Kingdom. Some scientists have been proven to have intentionally corrupted the data base, and others have been shown to have intentionally manipulated the data to support the carbon emissions theory. Instead of scientists being aghast at the fraud, many have rallied around the theory, and asserted that the science behind the theory is good and credible because such immense rigour has been applied to the theory that it must be correct. Therefore, they argue, there is scientific proof that carbon emissions are significantly responsible for global warming and that it is critical to put a price on carbon and to pass an ETS. The geocentric model and the Creation account had equal rigour applied to them. For now, both theories are hopelessly wrong.

A Scot named James Hutton devised a theory that everything on Earth is very old, and that the planet has been gradually shaped by erosion and occasionally rearranged by convulsive events. His analysis has provided the basis for dating everything on the Earth, including the planet itself. People now confidently parrot that the Earth is four billion years old, that certain dinosaurs walked the planet so many million years ago, and humans evolved into homo-sapiens so many tens of thousands of years ago, and so on. The believers claim that these dates are based upon scientific postulates, and that the results have been subjected to rigour, therefore they are correct.

The hypothesis of plate tectonics describing the formation of continents has been subjected to such scientific rigour that the theory of continental drift is readily accepted and parroted by many. The hypothesis of a molten-core Earth is equally accepted, whilst the sceptical “judges” have scoffed at the theory of the hollow Earth.

Doctors and psychiatrists who believe in metaphysical concepts and experiences should not be threatened by their respective licensing boards. Neither should lawyers or politicians be disadvantaged by acknowledging alien encounters. Psychics and those sensitive to metaphysical things should not be deemed mentally disturbed just because they can sense or “see” things that others do not.

Although science has improved many aspects of living by providing technology in many fields, its unsubstantiated theories should be treated much like religious beliefs. There is no absolute proof or disproof of them, or they would be facts, not theories. People should not be subjected to ridicule for their beliefs just because their beliefs do not fit scientifically prescribed scrutiny.

There is honest and dishonest science, as is the case in most human affairs. Insofar as science is submitted to the work of philosophers of science, that is, insofar as scientists take full advantage of this work, the science that emerges is quite different from that reaching the public. It has proven beyond reasonable doubt, for example, that biblical theology is true. But the liars that control scientific media, as you note, suppress such findings. As predicted, incidently, from the biblical theology hypothesis.

Public science, in our lifetime, will probably not be freed from the wicked disinformation program now in progress, and you do well to encourage others to take it's pronoucements with a grain (or more) of salt. The Atlantic Monthly has also started to expose the frauds long a part of medical research. I only encourage readers to get R.A.R. Tricker's little book, The Assesment of Scientific Speculation and begin to free their minds to understand honest science. It would not be good to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If anyone has mastered the Bayesian model for scientific methodology, I will be happy to walk them through the proof that biblical theology has therein been proved beyond reaseonable doubt, which is all, of course, that science can do.

[groktruth]

No post

[chaz wyman]

Error in Rigour
by
Amitakh Stanford
4th September 2010

Science has been elevated as the sole authority to explain the workings of the world and to decide what should and should not be taken seriously. Science determines what should be believed, what is superstitious, and what is nonsense. In a sense, science has become the self-proclaimed judge of everything. From this vaunted position, science has imposed its will on everything, and spread its tentacles into politics, religion, education, culture, medicine, law, and practically every other field.

That would depend on what you mean by science. What most people take to be science would not be concerned with the decisions about this list that relate to moral questions, though it can provide quantifiable evidence with which to help make decisions, it is not at the heart of these areas of human activity.


Under the “rule of science”, anything that is supernatural or metaphysical is often scoffed at or outright scorned. The scientific rulers have encouraged sceptics to belittle various phenomena, such as: UFO sightings, alien encounters, religious experiences, spirit communications, ghosts, astral beings, apparitions, inter-dimensional beings, reincarnation, past lives, continuation of consciousness, entity possessions, clairvoyance, clairaudience, prophecy, general psychic abilities, and anything else that does not fit neatly into scientific dogma.

I disagree. Science has been mobilised to assist in the explanation of these things. All of them - I think without exception has been demonstrated to either be explicable in other ways, or still inexplicable, in rare cases.

The elevation of science has been so effective that people are very fearful of its ridicule, scorn and rejection. Sceptics are confidently bolstered; they are proud that they alone can judge what is ridiculous and nonsense and what is true and acceptable. Sceptics are so self-assured in their positions as the judges of everything that they outwardly display an air of arrogance and contempt. Almost everything has to be subjected to the Scientific Inquisition, which is not so unlike the Spanish Inquisitions – knowledge and wisdom are their victims, too often suppressed and censored by the ignorant and the arrogant. In extreme cases, the sceptics proclaim that “science is never wrong!”

Wrong again. Science only can confirm that which is replicable and demonstrable. it is not a conspiracy to impose rationality and to mask special magical and mystical events.

Those who study science have not always been referred to as “scientists”. Until the 1830s, the discipline was known as natural philosophy, and individuals who studied it called themselves “natural philosophers”. The change in nomenclature allowed “scientists” to disassociate themselves from theoretical philosophers.

Total rubbish. Cite; Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, have all provided major contributions to the theoretical issues concerning science in the 20thC, and here are a few more.
http://www.academia.edu/People/Philosophy_Of_Science
At random..

Science presents its cases as if they were all based upon hard, empirical evidence. This is misleading. If every scientific theory were called a philosophical concept, everyone would be on guard as to its reliability and accuracy. Whilst scientists have gathered genuine data on some subjects, and conducted experiments to determine properties and “laws” of physics and other disciplines, they have also extrapolated, surmised, opined, and outright guessed in many other instances to develop various “scientific” theories about the composition of the universe and where humans stand in relation to everything in it.

Yeah - read Kuhn, and get your head out of the sand.

The theories are presented repeatedly, and with such ardent fervour, that everyone forgets they have little or no empirical basis.
Such as.????
Even the inconsistent theories are presented as facts. For instance, modern cosmology, which began in the 1920s, postulates the theory that the universe is expanding. From this hypothesis, cosmologists have theorised that the universe began with a big bang, a convulsive explosion. An alternative view is the steady-state theory, which asserts that the universe has no origin, but is expanding based on the continual formation of new matter. The theories are contradictory. One takes the position of convulsive evolution, while the other emphasises gradual growth and development.

Your point is what? All you are doing is contradicting yourself by presenting conflicting theories that you say cannot happen because science admits not skepticism.

Scientists of today will use the premises of these contradictory theories to mix and match their particular guesses at how the universe operates. For example, Darwinian evolutionary theory requires vast time-lines to be feasible. Therefore, the Darwinian view requires that the Earth be very old and to have gradually developed. On the other hand, another scientific theory about the extinction of the dinosaurs is that a catastrophic event wiped them out. This goes to show that the accepted scientific theories are not always based on consistent premises. It is often the case in science that the convenient theory becomes the accepted theory.

The late Cretaceous extinctions are completely in accord with evolutionary theory. Not all the details can be known and so there exist a range of theories about the specifics, not the generalities.



History has shown how many huge mistakes natural philosophers have made. The flat-Earth theory was believed for millennia, as was the theory that the Earth was the centre of the universe and everything revolved around it.

There has never been a flat-earth theory. It is a myth. It has never been accepted by any natural philosopher or scientist. It is a minority crank idea like clairvoyance for which no support has ever been demonstrated.
You are confused. You mean the geocentric hypothesis. This holds that the earth is in the centre of the universe.



Copernicus disproved the likelihood that the Earth was the centre of the universe, instead offering the alternative view that it is a subservient satellite of the sun in our solar system.

He did no such thing. He used an alternative theory that was first suggested by Aristarchus. His heliocentric theory failed to satisfy the facts and was more clumsy than Ptolemy's system that had been in use for 1300 years. THe reason the heliocentric theory was resisted for so long was for two reasons. 1) the assumption of perfect circles for the orbits since the time of Aristotle and taken and dogma by the Christian church prevented discussion on this matter, 2) it was considered to be impious to move the earth from the centre of god's creation.
The error and its remedy had nothing to do with a mistake of science, but the prognostications of a superstitious church. It was not until Kepler overturned the notion of perfect circles and postulated elliptical orbits that everything fell into place.


Even today, most people are unaware that what Copernicus presented is a theory. As more and more evidence emerges, it becomes more and more likely that Copernicus was correct. With regard to the two main theories of the origin of the universe, they are rudimentary hypotheses that should not even be elevated to the level of theories. Yet, the big bang is presented as though it is an absolute fact; Darwin's theory of evolution is dealt with in the same manner.

All scientists agree that theories are temporary, and that new evidence can overturn paradigms. Only science is able to do this. TO change religion you need to kill people

Many people want to accept the scientific explanation of the universe because they disbelieve the religious philosophy and dogma regarding Creation. A typical religious creation account is found in the Torah, which is part of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible. That account of creation was subjected to tremendous rigour by religious scholars and natural philosophers. It was accepted by many who went through this rigorous study that the Earth was approximately 6,000 years old. The rigour employed was referred to by many as one of the most rigorous endeavours of the pre-Renaissance era. Proponents of the 6,000 year-old Earth included Elijah, Augustine of Hippo, Bede, Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther, among others. Even the esteemed natural philosopher, Isaac Newton, concluded that the religious scholars were essentially correct; the Earth is about 6,000 years old.

Yes and they were all completely wrong. Thankfully science is a growing entity. None of these religious people had the information needed to know the universe as we now know it. The entire list thought that the earth was the centre of the universe, and they were as wrong about that as they were about the age of the universe. As for Newton, were he alive today he would think you a fool and know the truth about the age of the universe.


Much of the 6,000 year-old Earth belief can be blamed on the King James Version of the Bible, which included annotations in the margins to put all the dates together for people to apply rigour in testing biblical dates for creation. Some extreme religious philosophers, who echoed the marginal annotations in the King James Version of the Bible, claimed that Creation occurred on Sunday at noon, on the 23rd of October, 4004 B.C.

They simply lacked ANY evidence for this childish belief. You - on the other hand - have all the evidence availible to you and refuse to look into it.

Science prides itself on employing rigour, which means that science has tested many of its theories over and over. The problem is that the rigour can be based on flawed premises, be flawed methodologically, or both. There was immense rigour applied to the geocentric model of the Earth, and it was fully accepted by religious and natural philosophers until Copernicus refuted it. Now, the same type of rigour is applied to the theory that the sun is the centre of the solar system. If, in the future, someone were to unequivocally refute the Copernican theory, all of the rigour in proving it would have to be abandoned. Such is the state of scientific discoveries that people would accept the new theory and laugh at the old.

Blah blah... we all know where this is going.
Close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and srweemmm!!!


Let me ask you a question. In the garden of Eden 6,000 years ago, were there any fossils in the rock or any tree rings in the trees??





Science has presented us with the theory that carbon emissions are significant contributors to global warming. It has presented us with many scientific evaluations of the data to prove this position, and the scientific consensus is that carbon emissions must be reduced to check global warming. The raw data on which scientists have based this conclusion is not readily available; it is secreted in the United Kingdom. Some scientists have been proven to have intentionally corrupted the data base, and others have been shown to have intentionally manipulated the data to support the carbon emissions theory. Instead of scientists being aghast at the fraud, many have rallied around the theory, and asserted that the science behind the theory is good and credible because such immense rigour has been applied to the theory that it must be correct. Therefore, they argue, there is scientific proof that carbon emissions are significantly responsible for global warming and that it is critical to put a price on carbon and to pass an ETS. The geocentric model and the Creation account had equal rigour applied to them. For now, both theories are hopelessly wrong.

A Scot named James Hutton devised a theory that everything on Earth is very old, and that the planet has been gradually shaped by erosion and occasionally rearranged by convulsive events. His analysis has provided the basis for dating everything on the Earth, including the planet itself. People now confidently parrot that the Earth is four billion years old, that certain dinosaurs walked the planet so many million years ago, and humans evolved into homo-sapiens so many tens of thousands of years ago, and so on. The believers claim that these dates are based upon scientific postulates, and that the results have been subjected to rigour, therefore they are correct.

The hypothesis of plate tectonics describing the formation of continents has been subjected to such scientific rigour that the theory of continental drift is readily accepted and parroted by many. The hypothesis of a molten-core Earth is equally accepted, whilst the sceptical “judges” have scoffed at the theory of the hollow Earth.

Doctors and psychiatrists who believe in metaphysical concepts and experiences should not be threatened by their respective licensing boards. Neither should lawyers or politicians be disadvantaged by acknowledging alien encounters. Psychics and those sensitive to metaphysical things should not be deemed mentally disturbed just because they can sense or “see” things that others do not.

Although science has improved many aspects of living by providing technology in many fields, its unsubstantiated theories should be treated much like religious beliefs. There is no absolute proof or disproof of them, or they would be facts, not theories. People should not be subjected to ridicule for their beliefs just because their beliefs do not fit scientifically prescribed scrutiny.

[Cerveny]

I miss one substantial thing in both cases (as in the religion as in the "top" science). That thing is the sense, the purpose. I am not able to find out the reason why God should have created the Universe in fact. It is important, perhaps the most important by my mean. On the other hand, hardly to believe in present “scientific” belief that something as magnificent as the Universe has risen incidentally. Yet, we certainly can see the permanent, strong supply of a life’s energy. Thus the purpose of Universe seems to be just the life. The people prize the life more and more. Maybe it is some compensation of unfulfilled spiritual experience, of lack of the nature. Perhaps the sense of universe is an intelligent, powerful creation, as a blossom able to spread the seed of life across the Universe, perhaps the God needs a son… who knows :)

[chaz wyman]

I miss one substantial thing in both cases (as in the religion as in the "top" science). That thing is the sense, the purpose. I am not able to find out the reason why God should have created the Universe in fact. It is important, perhaps the most important by my mean. On the other hand, hardly to believe in present “scientific” belief that something as magnificent as the Universe has risen incidentally. Yet, we certainly can see the permanent, strong supply of a life’s energy. Thus the purpose of Universe seems to be just the life. The people prize the life more and more. Maybe it is some compensation of unfulfilled spiritual experience, of lack of the nature. Perhaps the sense of universe is an intelligent, powerful creation, as a blossom able to spread the seed of life across the Universe, perhaps the God needs a son… who knows

I'm puzzled why you think that pointing to an origin to any of this helps. It just leads to an infinite regression of causality that any child would recognise. If god created it, then what, asked my five year old son, created god, ad infinitem??
The universe is what it is. There is nothing more to be said. It is far less likely that a being should have created it, because in such a case not only do you have to account for the universe but also you have to account for a thing much greater - a god. How could this thing have come about by itself?
Why not just accept that the Universe is what it has always been. It is unique and the only example of itself being without example or precedent.
The universe as far as we know is not concerned or designed with life in mind. Life is but an insignificant epiphenomenon. Of the trillions of tonnes of matter that comprises our mediocre solar system, a tiny and insignificant fraction is inhabited. From the perspective of space, all life, everything the human race has been, or will every be, all that the sum of living things will be or has ever been, is nothing more that a green/brown temporary coating on a minor planet that we come and go in the flash of a cosmic eye, her now gone for eternity.
We are nothing, beyond the recognition of the stars and of eternity.

[Cerveny]

I'm puzzled why you think that pointing to an origin to any of this helps. It just leads to an infinite regression of causality that any child would recognise. If god created it, then what, asked my five year old son, created god, ad infinitem??

As I do not believe in any eternity, in any infinity, in any singularity in our real physical world I am to consider the beginning of our Universe. Considering Gödel’s point of view I have put off the idea about a final recognizing and describing whole reality. Thus being focusing at our reachable world, I have found the most interesting its border: the beginning (of Universe condensation) - the "condensation core" of Universe and the its surface - the point "now". It is unimaginable for me to suppose that all Universe information, all Universe energy is contained in such "core", yet even in dimensionless point. By my opinion we must got as the energy, as well some kind of "information" from outside, from the other reality phase, from the "future"... Just a great will for live I have connected with a supplying of Information, with some external support. It does not matter how such support is called...

The universe is what it is. There is nothing more to be said. It is far less likely that a being should have created it, because in such a case not only do you have to account for the universe but also you have to account for a thing much greater - a god. How could this thing have come about by itself?
Why not just accept that the Universe is what it has always been. It is unique and the only example of itself being without example or precedent.
The universe as far as we know is not concerned or designed with life in mind. Life is but an insignificant epiphenomenon. Of the trillions of tonnes of matter that comprises our mediocre solar system, a tiny and insignificant fraction is inhabited. From the perspective of space, all life, everything the human race has been, or will every be, all that the sum of living things will be or has ever been, is nothing more that a green/brown temporary coating on a minor planet that we come and go in the flash of a cosmic eye, her now gone for eternity.
We are nothing, beyond the recognition of the stars and of eternity

[groktruth]

I miss one substantial thing in both cases (as in the religion as in the "top" science). That thing is the sense, the purpose. I am not able to find out the reason why God should have created the Universe in fact. It is important, perhaps the most important by my mean. On the other hand, hardly to believe in present “scientific” belief that something as magnificent as the Universe has risen incidentally. Yet, we certainly can see the permanent, strong supply of a life’s energy. Thus the purpose of Universe seems to be just the life. The people prize the life more and more. Maybe it is some compensation of unfulfilled spiritual experience, of lack of the nature. Perhaps the sense of universe is an intelligent, powerful creation, as a blossom able to spread the seed of life across the Universe, perhaps the God needs a son… who knows

I'm puzzled why you think that pointing to an origin to any of this helps. It just leads to an infinite regression of causality that any child would recognise. If god created it, then what, asked my five year old son, created god, ad infinitem??
The universe is what it is. There is nothing more to be said. It is far less likely that a being should have created it, because in such a case not only do you have to account for the universe but also you have to account for a thing much greater - a god. How could this thing have come about by itself?
Why not just accept that the Universe is what it has always been. It is unique and the only example of itself being without example or precedent.
The universe as far as we know is not concerned or designed with life in mind. Life is but an insignificant epiphenomenon. Of the trillions of tonnes of matter that comprises our mediocre solar system, a tiny and insignificant fraction is inhabited. From the perspective of space, all life, everything the human race has been, or will every be, all that the sum of living things will be or has ever been, is nothing more that a green/brown temporary coating on a minor planet that we come and go in the flash of a cosmic eye, her now gone for eternity.
We are nothing, beyond the recognition of the stars and of eternity.

Some recommended ways of knowing what is true are trustworthy authority, inspiring art, verifiable science, and unrevised history. Some hinderances are wishful thinking, rationalization, hubris, denial, osrichism, lies and liars, disinformation programs, mental illness, delusion. When ideas are examined by the approved methods, and precautions are taken to avoid or counteract the hinderances, one is more likely to be closer to the truth. Which will result in wiser decisions. My own efforts to do this lead me to suppose that it is highly likely that I am living in a universe that was created by someone who appreciates (rewards) being appreciated. Enjoying as I do the many rewards that appear to have come to me because of operating as if this were true, it makes sense to me that, as an idea, however "illogical" it may now seem to my "pea-brain," it is pretty close to being true.

[chaz wyman]

I miss one substantial thing in both cases (as in the religion as in the "top" science). That thing is the sense, the purpose. I am not able to find out the reason why God should have created the Universe in fact. It is important, perhaps the most important by my mean. On the other hand, hardly to believe in present “scientific” belief that something as magnificent as the Universe has risen incidentally. Yet, we certainly can see the permanent, strong supply of a life’s energy. Thus the purpose of Universe seems to be just the life. The people prize the life more and more. Maybe it is some compensation of unfulfilled spiritual experience, of lack of the nature. Perhaps the sense of universe is an intelligent, powerful creation, as a blossom able to spread the seed of life across the Universe, perhaps the God needs a son… who knows

I'm puzzled why you think that pointing to an origin to any of this helps. It just leads to an infinite regression of causality that any child would recognise. If god created it, then what, asked my five year old son, created god, ad infinitem??
The universe is what it is. There is nothing more to be said. It is far less likely that a being should have created it, because in such a case not only do you have to account for the universe but also you have to account for a thing much greater - a god. How could this thing have come about by itself?
Why not just accept that the Universe is what it has always been. It is unique and the only example of itself being without example or precedent.
The universe as far as we know is not concerned or designed with life in mind. Life is but an insignificant epiphenomenon. Of the trillions of tonnes of matter that comprises our mediocre solar system, a tiny and insignificant fraction is inhabited. From the perspective of space, all life, everything the human race has been, or will every be, all that the sum of living things will be or has ever been, is nothing more that a green/brown temporary coating on a minor planet that we come and go in the flash of a cosmic eye, her now gone for eternity.
We are nothing, beyond the recognition of the stars and of eternity.

Some recommended ways of knowing what is true are trustworthy authority, inspiring art, verifiable science, and unrevised history. Some hinderances are wishful thinking, rationalization, hubris, denial, osrichism, lies and liars, disinformation programs, mental illness, delusion. When ideas are examined by the approved methods, and precautions are taken to avoid or counteract the hinderances, one is more likely to be closer to the truth. Which will result in wiser decisions. My own efforts to do this lead me to suppose that it is highly likely that I am living in a universe that was created by someone who appreciates (rewards) being appreciated. Enjoying as I do the many rewards that appear to have come to me because of operating as if this were true, it makes sense to me that, as an idea, however "illogical" it may now seem to my "pea-brain," it is pretty close to being true.

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

[groktruth]

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

[chaz wyman]

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

The inhabitants of Haiti are far more devout than you, this has not helped them.

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

My life is abundant but do not subscribe to this 'storehouse'.

[chaz wyman]

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

READ this and tell me why your god allows you such luxury.

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/asd ... anteed.pdf

[groktruth]

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

The inhabitants of Haiti are far more devout than you, this has not helped them.


Biblical theology (BT) offers no hope that "devotion," being devout, offers any hope for material prosperity.


Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

My life is abundant but do not subscribe to this 'storehouse'.


titheing is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for prosperity. BT in fact frequently notes that the wicked prosper, as a curse or punishment. It deludes them into clinging to their wickedness.

[John]

titheing is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for prosperity. BT in fact frequently notes that the wicked prosper, as a curse or punishment. It deludes them into clinging to their wickedness.

This is rather ridiculous. You've offered an empirically testable position that doesn't stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever unless you redefine "prosperity" in a way that defies all common definitions.

[groktruth]

Arrogant, self satisfied and delusional. Utter hubris!
What gets you the rewards and not a person from Haiti, who has just lost his plastic home in a hurricane?

Titheing to God's storehouse, where He keeps His commandments. I have yet to hear of a single person who tithes so who is not abundantly provided for. Do you know of any?

Thanks for the warnings about arrogance, etc. Will get right on it. Or better, will get the powers that be on it. (Ever read that Stephen King short story, about the mafia group that made those who wanted to, say, quit smoking, get 'er done?)

READ this and tell me why your god allows you such luxury.

http://www.actionaid.org.uk/doc_lib/asd ... anteed.pdf

Luxury? I'm agin' luxury. I want to prosper in what I do, which is overcome evil with good. To have whatever I need to get that done most effectively. I hope it's working to improve the lives of troubled people.