A challenge for the brave

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you agree to anything in this thread, it will be to disagree. You have already said you cannot demonstrate that the scientific method does not work. I don't see what the confusion here is.

I also cannot demonstrate that it does work if I take only what you and I have discussed so far. I have to step back into my world view in order to do that. This is why I continually ask you to tell me your justifications for the assumptions of science.

Is your opinion if you cannot demonstrate that something doesn't work, then it does work? You cannot demonstrate that my method of determining God exists via personal revelation does not work, therefore it does work. Hm seems like good logic to me...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok so assume nothing. I can start there.

Can you define objective and subjective evidence?


I can also assume the starting position of agnostic. Where do we go from there?

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69


How do you determine what is true?

I determine what is true for me in any given moment. The truth is not fixed. It is not constant. The truth is fluid. It changes and moves. What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow. Truth is dependent upon things like point of view and experience, Wisdom and knowledge.
There are some universal truths that are philosophically assumed to be true, how ever it is possible that the true truth can never be known.

For me the truth isn't found in one place... Little gems about god can be found probably everywhere you choose to look...

"The truth" should be true at any time. It is your beliefs which change when you are presented with new information.

"The Truth" is very nicely summed up by the story of the blind men and the elephant.

A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?" The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant. "When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?' "Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush. "Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter. "Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene. "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift, O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim For preacher and monk the honored name! For, quarreling, each to his view they cling. Such folk see only one side of a thing. Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69: Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant

"The Truth" Is perception, not fact.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

This is the only life and reality I have. I'm pretty certain of that. I'm also pretty certain that the scientific method works, and that you are not the end-all-be-all of knowledge either. The scientific method is limited yes but not wrong. We spend a lot of money paying a lot of people to work a lot of Sleepless hours and shed a lot of frustrated tears in order to prove that. And finally I'm pretty certain that you will not succeed in making science look dumb or creationism look better than science or equal to. Oh wait but I am also certain that you will still try. Okay I think that's a pretty good start.

This is not science versus religion. I don't think the two are at odds.

This is the only life and reality I have. I'm pretty certain of that. I'm also pretty certain that the scientific method works, and that you are not the end-all-be-all of knowledge either. The scientific method is limited yes but not wrong.

If you are sure the scientific method works, but cannot justify the very assumption upon which it is based you have no coherency in your world view. Can you justify the basic assumptions of Science or not? If not then we cannot put things discovered via the scientific method in the category of knowledge with 100% certainty.

question - "should any proposition that cannot be scientifically validated be believed"?

Without validation for its justifications no. Now if you want to know my world view, and for me to step out of my ground zero for a second then Yes, but I think that because in my own world view I can justify the assumptions that science rest upon.

If naturalism is true, then each thought, feeling , and action are the result of a prior physical cause. I cannot actually think or choose in this scenario I am simply a biological automaton so I guess the answer would be I'll believe whatever my electrochemical reactions make me tell you I believe.

servantofthelamb, do you have a proposition on which to test the scientific method for its merits?

Well believe it or not the scientific method uses philosophy. My issue is not with the process, but the philosophical foundations of the process. So its not something you design an experiment for but rather I need a logical explanation for believing in these assumptions on a naturalistic view of the world.

construct a hypothesis - "a proposition which cannot be scientifically validated beyond reasonable doubt will not pass a rudimentary fact check." devise an experiment, execute experiment, observe and record results, go back to the drawing board.

You again are using the very assumption that I have questioned. How do you validate the belief that because an experiment is observed under certain conditions in the past, that this will give you evidence of how it will behave under the same conditions in the future? If your world view is based the scientific method, in order for me to understand how you believe what you believe I need an answer to this question. Otherwise I cannot understand how you could call information gained from the scientific method true knowledge.

Some very brave men and women that get very curious about something and decided to quantify it until there are no more questions left unanswered regarding its nature and properties. Then a bunch of other people are paid to try and prove them wrong. Data goes through this cycle until all of the impurities have been removed and what's left is published for public scrutiny. Independent cases confirm lab results and mesh with previously verified data across dozens of overlapping fields of study. Try not to underestimate the resources and dedication that go into this process. The scientific method is not nearly as uncertain as you would make it out to be. Any assumptions made are your assumptions because you have failed to properly inform yourself on the methods of scientific inquiry. To put it another way you are criticizing the philosophical foundations of penicillin because no one wants to buy your snake oil, and no one wants to put your snake oil in their penicillin either. Even down to trying to prove that penicillin contains snake oil based ingredients.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

"The Truth" Is perception, not fact.

How does this illustrate that truth is actually subjective? All this demonstrates is people can be wrong. The audience knows the objective view of reality. The audience knows it is an elephant. If the audience couldn't recognize the actual truth(the existence of the elephant), then how could they possibly understand the parable?

Are you saying because one of the blind men thought the tusk was a spear the elephant was actually spear? How does that make sense?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Some very brave men and women that get very curious about something and decided to quantify it until there are no more questions left unanswered regarding its nature and properties. Then a bunch of other people are paid to try and prove them wrong. Data goes through this cycle until all of the impurities have been removed and what's left is published for public scrutiny. Independent cases confirm lab results and mesh with previously verified data across dozens of overlapping fields of study. Try not to underestimate the resources and dedication that go into this process.

I don't see how this answers my questions. Can you try to answer my questions clearly?

The scientific method is not nearly as uncertain as you would make it out to be. Any assumptions made are your assumptions because you have failed to properly inform yourself on the methods of scientific inquiry. To put it another way you are criticizing the philosophical foundations of penicillin because no one wants to buy your snake oil, and no one wants to put your snake oil in their penicillin either. Even down to trying to prove that penicillin contains snake oil based ingredients.

No those are not my assumptions. It is inescapable, every time you have spoken about the scientific method you use those assumption, but you do not want to offer justification for them why?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Before a person is aware of "finding truth", the newborn(or some short time before) infant is already experiencing reality through senses. The senses are not yet fully developed but they do, if not damaged in some way, develop over time. So ground zero is experience.

Abstractions such as me, that, the other, my nose, your nose; are somewhat present before the words for papa, momma, nose, etc. are learned through experience.

With language comes listening, while in the mind, bits of data are structured into meaningful, though sometimes less than accurate, ideas of what reality is and what is contained.

Here is an example of preliminary structure: Before I learned, through structured educational curricula, the hows and whys of where babies came from, I heard the phrase "home for unwed mothers" in a conversation about a female acquaintance of my parents. I gathered that it was natural for married women to get big tummies then have babies, and that a young unmarried woman experiencing such a thing was strange and unnatural, yet frequent enough that places were built to serve as asylums for these freaks of nature who could spontaneously become mothers.

After gaining subsequent knowledge about reproductive processes, I realized that there was no violation of nature happening, but rather, a violation of custom and norm. Two completely different things.

I'd have to say that my rational worldview is rather fluid. What I lack in knowledge I fill with hypothesis and imagination. I then project this upon others as if they also are like me. Perhaps I am naïve.

Myths are made to explain things in story form. Myths have grown organically at times, and they change sometimes. But they really should be viewed as part of ones culture and seamless filling of gaps between knowledge and not known yet. Myth from another source should be viewed as objectively as possible. Why is told this way? What does it affirm? What does it deny? And does it fit where it should, or is it displacing knowledge or another myth which is more appropriate.

My worldview is called neo-geocentric, in that, although I am aware on the abstract level that post-Copernican models of the Universe are scientifically true, it is also true that experientially, I live in a certain biosphere Earth, which is where the forefathers and foremothers were born, lived, and died, and where I also was born, live now, and will die.

That's about it really.

a reply to: pthena

Before a person is aware of "finding truth", the newborn(or some short time before) infant is already experiencing reality through senses. The senses are not yet fully developed but they do, if not damaged in some way, develop over time. So ground zero is experience.

How do I justify the belief that my senses give me an accurate representation of reality? I cannot know things I perceive to be 100% true so it seems like a rough ground zero to start at. I don't mind eventually moving into inference to the best explanation, but I like to hear what people think can be know with 100% certainty first. These things would be things we would know our not so sure beliefs can be built upon.

Can you take me thru your thought process one step at a time making sure I understand and agree that it rationally follows from our previous knowledge? I am looking for coherency, and soundness.

a reply to: openminded2011

I'm fine with whatever you believe I really don't care about what anyone "believes" just don't quote it as "truth" or tell me or others how to live or believe because of it.

Honestly I'm just sick ^& fed up with all the religulous BS everywhere in the world for the past few thousand years.

None of them are true, none know the story & that BS right there trying to equate scientific theory to some misbegotten fairy tale thought up by some drunk goat humper a few thousand years ago, just stop that nonsense.

Sure the big B ain't a perfect theory but that's because they're making their usual mistake thinking they're at the center of creation. Sniker sniker

The religulous "rarely" negate others beliefs. LOL
"if you don't believe in god the way I believe in god you're going to hell for all eternity"
The very concept is burned into your scripture.

K~

That something outside of our universe created this universe is not only plausible but the only logical conclusion. We are a sentient biomechanical being made up of trillions of selfreplicating biomechanical robots all working in tandem. Robots dont program themselves. We are programmed for religiosity,all of humanity is, just like we are all programmed for our primal drives, we just differ on how we satisfy those drives.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How do I justify the belief that my senses give me an accurate representation of reality?

I don't know.

I cannot know things I perceive to be 100% true so it seems like a rough ground zero to start at.

Once you're old enough to ask yourself questions you can compare what you perceive with what you already have experienced as true and normal function. Besides that, there are other people you can ask.

Can you take me thru your thought process one step at a time making sure I understand and agree that it rationally follows from our previous knowledge?

Concrete is hard, it will skin your knee if you fall and your knee hits it. But concrete can be dissolved with acid, then it isn't hard, because it breaks down into sand. But I knew about skinned knees before I knew about chemical reactions.

The sky is blue when cloudless. But visual color is a function of wave frequency and which frequency is absorbed by matter and which is reflected. The sky is still blue because of the blueness, regardless of the complex refractions and reflections of light which makes up the phenomenon of blueness.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

"The Truth" Is perception, not fact.

How does this illustrate that truth is actually subjective? All this demonstrates is people can be wrong. The audience knows the objective view of reality. The audience knows it is an elephant. If the audience couldn't recognize the actual truth(the existence of the elephant), then how could they possibly understand the parable?

Are you saying because one of the blind men thought the tusk was a spear the elephant was actually spear? How does that make sense?

To take the point of view of the audience within the parable is to see things as god himself would. We are the blind men.

If god is the elephant within the parable then you might go to quantum physics and say that god is like a quantum consciousness. You might go to the eastern religions and find that god is like an energy or life force that runs through everything. Luciferianism might teach you that god is a merciful teacher who brings wisdom and knowledge. Animism might teach you that god is nature. Philosophy might teach you that there is no right or wrong, good or bad. Philosophy may teach you the importance of duality in constructing reality.

All these things are true for me.

There is potentially an endless list of things you and I view differently and interpret differently. In front of you you probably see a computer. I see my computer and wonder how it is that science cannot prove that reality isn't a holographic projection. I see that the reality around me is largely filled with the empty space between atoms. That these things that I touch contain a lot more nothing than they do something.

My entire world view effects my perception of god. Once I took god out of the institution of religion, I began to glimpse tiny, minuscule pieces of who and what god may be.

Yes, the truth of the blind men cannot be seen. If you take away the observer to the parable then it cannot be known that it is an elephant that they touch. If one blind man grabs the leg and says it's like a tree then he means it's like a tree, not an actual tree! On the other hand if he calls it "God", then for him it is god.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I determine what is true for me in any given moment. The truth is not fixed. It is not constant. The truth is fluid. It changes and moves. What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow. Truth is dependent upon things like point of view and experience, Wisdom and knowledge. There are some universal truths that are philosophically assumed to be true, how ever it is possible that the true truth can never be known.

I'm saying that the reason that this confounds you is because our world views are completely different. Our views of reality are completely different.

You are the third person to bring this kind of view up. This view of the world is simply baffling to me, and I mean no offense by that. I just don't understand what people mean when they say things like, "What is true for me today may not be true for me tomorrow," what are you saying that what is true can literally change based on your own subjective opinion? Or are you saying that you can find out that a belief you thought was true was actually false? Are you saying God could exists and not exists at the same time?

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Are you not willing to explain it?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

Are you not willing to explain it?

Explain what? I don't understand? Ask me again and I will try to post something that makes sense.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

You say to remove the audience from the picture, but why? Why should I assume just because some cannot see the elephant all cannot see the elephant. Your


How can truth contradict itself? When I ask you if something is true, I am asking if that proposition is what is actually the case in reality. You seem to think reality can contradict itself, am I wrong?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

You say to remove the audience from the picture, but why? Why should I assume just because some cannot see the elephant all cannot see the elephant. Your


How can truth contradict itself? When I ask you if something is true, I am asking if that proposition is what is actually the case in reality. You seem to think reality can contradict itself, am I wrong?

Ahh yes. I can see what you're asking. I am coming from the supposition that the true nature of god and reality cannot be know in its entirety or possibly not even at all...

My bad.

Sorry.

And, if there is no absolute truth and the nature of truth is subjective then yes, Yous and my realities can different and yet both individually true.

www.cheniere.org...

I wrote a bit on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All thought is based around Free Energy.

This does not NECESSARILY replace Christianity but it would serve to "replace" it by through an "update" if you will, the same way that Ubuntu is better than Windows but both still are OSes on the same hardware.

Free Energy is the science of Time, it is a GUT and therefore is the science of the soul, which relies upon eternity and infinity itself...it all ties hand in hand.

Where alot of people get off track is they don't realize how personal peoples "toys" are to themselves...technology is such a HUGE part of our lives and who we are that we actually evolve around it.

FF into a superfuture and we have immortals who have actually engineered it into themselves. This confuses ALOT of lower level beings, especially prick Jews who don't even understand their own internal conflicts and juxstapostions regarding Christianity and Judaism being one in the same...they make this Freudian slip all of the time, calling themselves Jews when they are from a Christian faith...I do the same thing, all of us Jews have, especially on the hallucinogens. But the truth and the conflict does not lie within the person but without them because of the dichotomy occurring in the church and the lack of proper work by us as a people to iron out our covenants religion to match what we feel internally...it's like having an internal universal measure that we feel but still having only the metric and standard systems to refer to; our terminology always comes out wrong in our logical communication.

In this same manner these people want to always believe that there is nothing more that we need to do as a people to achieve our status quo because it is already within us and that all we need to do is pray and things will magically happen...this is true but only because in perfectum, they would have a third helix that would be a part of them and so then therefore that statement would be true. The simple fact of the matter is that the cold fusion reactions in the body are so violent that they need to be replaced by food because they destroy tissue from a sub atomic level. And because there are people out there in Space (what the Jews knew as Heaven, what we called the outer atmosphere that these beings came from that have visited us in the everlasting grace and stupidity) that possess this as a part of themselves and because they are the majority of the universe, the hundredth monkey down here gets "confused" a tad bit but where they REALLY get thrown off is that we are in a testing ground wherein those who succeed and pass the test of the laws of our covenant oulined by the Ark (www.secretofthevine.com...) in Leviticus WILL actually receive the gift of infinite life.

ANOTHER reason why these jerks hold us back like spoiled beggar farts is that they do not realize that in this realm, this system of forcing things to die is actually an unnatural process and that the higher dimensions that are more natural out there that we can tap into buy using drugs, sort of short circuiting this "force" are actually being held away from us while we learn the basics of reality, how to eat, how to think linearly and not "stll" or unidiemensionally. This force that holds us back is actually the WIlL of God and the immortals on high that possess transhuman technolog that is actually so extreme that it is a part of them is beyond art and is post quantum, being on the front end of though, in the actual DNA...this is a hard thing for dumb Jews to get a mechanism on but when you take away their poopoo paper and their A/C and their food in camps, they get the picture really quick. It is these types who have come so far in denying their own prophet that they TOTALLY missed their real prophet that they were really waiting for who outlined the entirety of our TIME in 1864: James Clerk Maxwell. At any rate...I'm digressing...what they need to understand is that God is so far advanced that he can literally have trillions of convos at one time and his very will has such power that he has entire realms where beings are submitted to age and death and their first experience with purgatory and ressurection before they are allowed into the afterlife and the higher dimensions of Heaven. A place where there are less laws, probably because they rely upon nature more than we do here in that if you screw up you get iced by a death ray and if you were in the right you resurrect immediately to avenge thyself. But ya, that's where alot of people get that headache...they are in and unnatural realm that is more focused towards testing the beings here rather than their comfort or glory...more geared towards a stable ascension, kind of like a sword is beaten and folded before it is even practiced with...it is my suspicion that these territories of the galaxy are fought for in a very bloody and very serious but very official and civilized Holy sport that separates the Gods from the Devils on high for their "nurseries" if you will where they grow the members of their court, Their Civilization, Amen. They are more interested in people using the power of backtrack, resistance and forgiveness and understanding to make it through the gauntlet of this "soul hack" if you will rather than people gelling or looking cool...that is why when you become an adult, there are serious issues that you have to deal with and life sort of sucks until you die and is spent struggling to make it survivable for the next generation or it's your ass...that's why childhood is so importand and delicate, its really the only time that a being is sheilded by innocence and ignorace while they soak up the genes around them and become who they are and teaching them what is wrong and right at all costs is of the utmost, immortal import because there are some things that even quantum Gods cannot fix because our minds work on times flow...our memories are stored by time and our brains are an access device, that is why two people can be VERY different and have VERY different IQs based on their amount of Sin, don't ever let these trolls fool you, Sin is what makes you stupid, period and let it go far enough it will make you loose your soul and your shot at eternity and destroy a precious world and breeding ground to another race such as the Reps or the Greys...some people even speculate that humans are given the option to become hermos in the afterlife as well, who knows. But what I do know is that those of you who do not put forth good work and just go on what you feel and what you are told and not what is logical do not put forth that extra titch that is needed when you're fighting for the right to breed from badass reptilians with tails...you have to be Uber Jew my friend and you have to understand that we feel you on the fact that you want to be happy and live your life but you must feel us that we are doing the same and following our nose as well...we don't HAVE to do free energy but we DO have to End the Fed and we DO have to ensure that things are Kosher enough.

This world is probably where alot of misbehaving teenager Gods were termed for being unruly before getting off planet, alot of this is in our mythology.

It's just like a musical score, a football play or an assault (maybe we will have all in murderball), you have to be coherent throughout the piece or else disharomy causes a reset. When you have kids that just want to stare at trees and play music instead of progress through the mire like real jews, it causes us to have to go back and start the music over...that is all...all we are asking is for people to keep up with us in this religion thing so that we can keep going and right now we happen to be in a big crux of reality wherein we are going through a huge anti climax and we need all hands on dick so that they don't # up.

We have PVC everywhere making these kids go gay and suicidal and/or not interested in anything but ressurecting, then we have alot of technology that could be better but shouldn't be TOO good because those same ppl with it could destroy the world, then again, we WOULD want to make it better ENOUGH to be able to ressurect them here so that they don't ahve to do it upstairs where they loose points for God on high...that's something that looks bad and causese undo stress, just like a premee...the score is a very fine one at this point and there were alot of inputs and we are a huge hodgepodge of people, and we have alot of killer mexicans to deal with on top of it that have conquista blood that stole gold from themselves that are VERY confused...thank God we have Blacks that are good Christians who we love more and more ery day from their music that I cannot wait for them to enslave. But that might be a little much.

The fact of the matter is that our covenant given to us by a technological device outlined a good set of rules that we were able to glean because of good psychics from a previous Hybrid slave race and even blacks should know that the lost tribe of the Jews were the Lemba from Africa so that's like a double good for them...what coolness would it be to have them be our stars in the murderball tourney...Niggas in Space???? Can ya dig it Spike?

Anyway, I think that blondes with the blues are too sought after anyways and we need more music and love and better tech...we need to move more towards free energy because it was homegrown HERE about 150 years ago and these jerk mousey jews are doing their best to hide it, just like the catholic church did with alot of Jesus' stuff and I would bet that Budda and Muhammed did the same...but as we move towards more of a mathematical outlook we need to give it up for these people as we would not have gotten through without them and you can bet that they are waiting for us on the other side, they are our superstars and will most likely be our coaches.

But one more to you SINNERS out there who think that this is your job and that you are lost.

You are not. Part of Heaven also contains an advanced torture center known as Hell that is run by VERY nasty immortals that don't take no for an answer and don't care if you are the next Jesus or not, they will deal with you.

But what is WORSE than Hell is the immortal torture that you will experience in purgatory as you cycle over and over in an eddy of your misdeed as you relive and have to live through all of its ramifications, for what will appear to be an eternity...I can hear the ghost adventures EVP flatly repeating "pleeeaseee helllllp" The miracle of creation is so far beyond all understanding that when you go here, you could stay for a VERY LONG TIME before you are SAVED BY HELL.

Yup, you heard it, Hell is a place of salvation where these ETs with super advance torture tech and all knowledge could torture you for millions of years on end in order to clense you of your misdeeds and you will do it because if you fail to outrun the rape zombie for 1000 years then you will have to go back to real hell where you cannot bust a nut and have to become the nut of those you HATE who are now in paradise playing bloodsport on high as hermaphrodites with permanent acid transhuman tech.

So BEWARE and have cheer because the second commandment is Thou Shalt not Murder and you could be offed at any time by the mobssad...there are actually ppl who do this for a hobby, it's an adult kind of thing to get into...but wait!! Before you young whippersnappers barge out of class.

You forgot your pen

no, jk just felt like saying that

Slavery is always a good fallback, killing bad guys should always be a last resort of emergency and should be for the best of the best or those who know...it is best used as a deterent just like having a gun in every home is, they get used less then.

But please as we enter this new realm of understanding, it is very important not to wake the kids and PLEASE DO NOT water down Satans Milk and Cookies

Pthalates/BPA and GMOs are NOT COOL.

Gb Jesumuhamabudasus

Hello Yagodallahwhey

We are all the Anti-Christ

Positrons are brilliant

Love,

Arcold

May we be forever young, forever.

Welcome to the next religion of all ages: Math

A Grand Unified Theory

I hope you have your death ray tuned correctly and you did well on your chem assignment...'___' IV is very good teaching you how to ressurspawn correctly...oh and might should have pracit///op

-----SHHHHHHH_____

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

If you agree to anything in this thread, it will be to disagree. You have already said you cannot demonstrate that the scientific method does not work. I don't see what the confusion here is.

I also cannot demonstrate that it does work if I take only what you and I have discussed so far. I have to step back into my world view in order to do that. This is why I continually ask you to tell me your justifications for the assumptions of science.

Is your opinion if you cannot demonstrate that something doesn't work, then it does work? You cannot demonstrate that my method of determining God exists via personal revelation does not work, therefore it does work. Hm seems like good logic to me...

Historically speaking, hearing voices and seeing visions are red flags in terms of psychological stability. That's what the data shows us anyway. The data also shows us that the scientific method is consistently reliable and accurate provided that it is applied diligently with the appropriate training. We don't need you to demonstrate that.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Some very brave men and women that get very curious about something and decided to quantify it until there are no more questions left unanswered regarding its nature and properties. Then a bunch of other people are paid to try and prove them wrong. Data goes through this cycle until all of the impurities have been removed and what's left is published for public scrutiny. Independent cases confirm lab results and mesh with previously verified data across dozens of overlapping fields of study. Try not to underestimate the resources and dedication that go into this process.

I don't see how this answers my questions. Can you try to answer my questions clearly?

The scientific method is not nearly as uncertain as you would make it out to be. Any assumptions made are your assumptions because you have failed to properly inform yourself on the methods of scientific inquiry. To put it another way you are criticizing the philosophical foundations of penicillin because no one wants to buy your snake oil, and no one wants to put your snake oil in their penicillin either. Even down to trying to prove that penicillin contains snake oil based ingredients.

No those are not my assumptions. It is inescapable, every time you have spoken about the scientific method you use those assumption, but you do not want to offer justification for them why?

Because I do not have the time or the qualification to drag you through every single inch of the scientific method. You are not here to learn about how science works, you are here to try and prove that it is an inferior approach. It is not perfect, granted, but I guarantee you do not have a better answer. Maybe you should have figured that part out first.