Occam's Razor basically states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." In scientific terms, this means that the simplest answer to a question, when faced with two or more possible answers, is the most accurate. Having said that, I find Christianity has very strange and enigmatic explanations for history and the world around us.
For instance, the story about Adam and Eve eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Why create such an incredible penalty for something that this god knew would happen? After all, it is all part of his plan in the first place being that he is omnipotent and omniscient. This is the explanation given for why "evil" happens. This could better be explained by the conclusion that there is no god, or, if there is, he is deistic rather than theistic, but, as LaPlace showed us, the model works fine without a god figure.
Another strange example from the Bible is the story of Noah and the ark. Are we actually supposed to believe that Noah actually had two of every animal on the ark with him and his family? This seems mildly plausible until one examines some other beliefs held in the Christian faith, such as the belief that humans were created before animals (Which then begs the question, were there also two of every type of dinosaur on the ark? How did that work? Also, the interbreeding taking place would have surely destroyed our species after several generations, unless it was condoned by god in which case, it would just be weird).
The widely held belief that the entire universe is only six thousand years old comes to mind, as well, even though science has been able to date it as far back as 14.5 billion years old.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that since none of these claims have been adequately explained or backed up by evidence (the Bible is hearsay and doesn't count), why believe them when science offers a totally rational alternative based on tested facts and absent superstitious, non-provable (or disprovable) beliefs?
Occam's Razor, Anyone?
Moderator: Moderators
- Awediot
- Student
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Equined Toothed foot of the Rockies
Post #35
Some of what sort of evidence? If you request some, help me out by letting me know what might do the trick...Some.
I just might (see above)...but I kind of doubt you really want it... I need evidence that your desire is sincere... Convince me first.Got any?
I know...that's why I wrote it...Exactly.
If your belief in God hinges on getting "some" "evidence" that you can't immediately describe, but might be any and every thing BUT God anyway... what short of a spiritual lobotomy where God destroys your ability to doubt Him, could ever get you to believe?
...and even IF that lobotomy were performed, the first thing you imagine you'd do is get stoned in honor of your newly realized Messiah... (and I never said it was Jesus)...Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!
Versus the sharp logic behind "Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!"Indicative of an emotionally based position.
The truth is the truth regardless of the vehicle that it arrives in... Your responses in this very post only goes to prove that the word "evidence" is part of the problem... The requestr for it, and then formulaic presentation of it is habitual in discussions like this. Neither person has the slightest expectation of changing the other's mind...but it's a familiar rut, and there doesn't seem any where else to go with it...
I see no reason to shut off my mind when praying to God..and there is no reason to dismiss my emotions in order to convey a truth... My brain has betrayed me just as bad as my gut has... My head rules my heart, but they work best as a couple.
You can ask the same of them... I do occasionally... but it'd be nice if you did it after you tried to at least address the question first...otherwise it just looks like you're trying to change the subject.We can ask the same of such folks who continue to restrict the rights of others based on their unprovable claims to possess knowledge regarding the properties of a god they can't show exists.
When (some) Christians (or other theists) quit trying to turn the planet into a theocracy, perhaps there'll be little reason to ask them if they speak truth regarding the wants and wishes of their favored god.
...and I'm not sure what people (misusing IMO) their beliefs in God for political gain has to do with whether or not He exists, and how we might come to know it if He does.
I agree, and find no biblical justification for the way some Christians act. I won't defend them... It has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing though.
Post #36
Sorry for posting back to back but i thought this would be good time to put in some links.
Evidence of how we diverged from the common ancestor of monkeys.
[youtube][/youtube]
This is one of a series of videos, also the music is great, i tend to listen to more than watch it anymore. Also starts off very complex.
[youtube][/youtube]
Now please do not take offense at the title it was originally made as a response video that later turned into one of my favorite extremely detailed videos. Its a very long series and i do not recommend watching it all in one sitting as you will get overloaded with information.
[youtube][/youtube]
Thanks for the tip TheJackelantern
Evidence of how we diverged from the common ancestor of monkeys.
[youtube][/youtube]
This is one of a series of videos, also the music is great, i tend to listen to more than watch it anymore. Also starts off very complex.
[youtube][/youtube]
Now please do not take offense at the title it was originally made as a response video that later turned into one of my favorite extremely detailed videos. Its a very long series and i do not recommend watching it all in one sitting as you will get overloaded with information.
[youtube][/youtube]
Thanks for the tip TheJackelantern
Last edited by MyReality on Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:10 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am
Post #37
If you edit your post and put the youtube tags on the videos, we can watch them withing the postMyReality wrote:Sorry for posting back to back but i thought this would be good time to put in some links.
Evidence of how we diverged from the common ancestor of monkeys.
This is one of a series of videos, also the music is great, i tend to listen to more than watch it anymore. Also starts off very complex.
Now please do not take offense at the title it was originally made as a response video that later turned into one of my favorite extremely detailed videos. Its a very long series and i do not recommend watching it all in one sitting as you will get overloaded with information.

[youtube]your video link here[/youtube]
But you have to remove "Feature=fvsr", or any "Embedded" end tags.... So you get :
Result:
[youtube][/youtube]

- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2573 times
Post #38
From Post 35:
Ya either have evidence or ya don't and you'll either present it or ya won't. Considering you've implied I didn't want to see the evidence I just there and asked to see and now in the next breath you question my sincerity, I'm getting the feeling you're seeking some excuse to not present your evidence.
Attempting to debate by asking someone what they'd do, and then getting onto 'em for it not being a logical thing to do - when you didn't even mention you was requirin' it be a logical thing to do, when ya was doing all that askin' - seems just a bit nefarious to me.
And you question the logic of smokin' a bowl?
Why not present what ya have, and let's go from there?Awediot wrote: Some of what sort of evidence? If you request some, help me out by letting me know what might do the trick...
Of course, the guy asking for evidence doesn't really want evidence.Awediot wrote: I just might (see above)...but I kind of doubt you really want it...
No.Awediot wrote: I need evidence that your desire is sincere... Convince me first.
Ya either have evidence or ya don't and you'll either present it or ya won't. Considering you've implied I didn't want to see the evidence I just there and asked to see and now in the next breath you question my sincerity, I'm getting the feeling you're seeking some excuse to not present your evidence.
I don't doubt it'd take a lobotomy to get me to accept claims you're trying so hard not to hafta support.Awediot wrote: If your belief in God hinges on getting "some" "evidence" that you can't immediately describe, but might be any and every thing BUT God anyway... what short of a spiritual lobotomy where God destroys your ability to doubt Him, could ever get you to believe?
Naw, I'd smoke a bowl before, during and after the lobotomy, regardless of whether this messiah was Jesus Christ or Clint Eastwood.Awediot wrote: ...and even IF that lobotomy were performed, the first thing you imagine you'd do is get stoned in honor of your newly realized Messiah... (and I never said it was Jesus)..
You asked me what I'd do, you didn't say nothing about it having to be no logical thing to do.Awediot wrote: Versus the sharp logic behind "Smokin' a bowl for Jesus!"
Attempting to debate by asking someone what they'd do, and then getting onto 'em for it not being a logical thing to do - when you didn't even mention you was requirin' it be a logical thing to do, when ya was doing all that askin' - seems just a bit nefarious to me.
How can you change someone's mind when you accuse them of not wanting to see the evidence they just sat there and asked to see, then you imply they're not sincere in their request so you won't present this evidence your just so all fired proud of, and then you go to mentioning how a lobotomy just might help 'em to start believing in this thing you're so obviously trying to not have to show your evidence for?Awediot wrote: The truth is the truth regardless of the vehicle that it arrives in... Your responses in this very post only goes to prove that the word "evidence" is part of the problem... The requestr for it, and then formulaic presentation of it is habitual in discussions like this. Neither person has the slightest expectation of changing the other's mind...but it's a familiar rut, and there doesn't seem any where else to go with it...
And you question the logic of smokin' a bowl?
Then show us you actually are conveying a "truth".Awediot wrote: I see no reason to shut off my mind when praying to God..and there is no reason to dismiss my emotions in order to convey a truth... My brain has betrayed me just as bad as my gut has... My head rules my heart, but they work best as a couple.
Let's run 'er back and see what the question was...Awediot wrote:You can ask the same of them... I do occasionally... but it'd be nice if you did it after you tried to at least address the question first...otherwise it just looks like you're trying to change the subject.JoeyKnothead wrote: We can ask the same of such folks who continue to restrict the rights of others based on their unprovable claims to possess knowledge regarding the properties of a god they can't show exists.
When (some) Christians (or other theists) quit trying to turn the planet into a theocracy, perhaps there'll be little reason to ask them if they speak truth regarding the wants and wishes of their favored god.
Oh, there wasn't one.Awediot, in Post 26 wrote: I wonder though, why people still persistently ask. A box of proof that can remove all doubt about God has never existed. It debuting in some internet forum before your eyes is about as likely as...well, you're the scientists... Wink
You're insistence that I first prove my sincerity before you'll offer your evidence indicates to me I ain't never gonna come to know if your god exists.Awediot wrote: ...and I'm not sure what people (misusing IMO) their beliefs in God for political gain has to do with whether or not He exists, and how we might come to know it if He does.
Fair 'nuff. I'd add that some assumptions were made as this is the Christianity & Apologetics section of Debating Christianity. I'd also agree though that if you ain't arguing about it being all christiany, then yeah, my assumptions did kinda run on ahead of it.Awediot wrote: I agree, and find no biblical justification for the way some Christians act. I won't defend them... It has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing though.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Post #39
Scientific theories are not "just theories" they are an explanation that makes sense from all angles; different areas of science all converge with wildly different findings to find an explanation that satisfies all available results. Yes, it is not proven; neither is the theory of gravity. Do you think gravitational pull is something that can just be written off? Should we laugh in Einstein's face because he was unable to comprehensively prove Relativity? Should we laugh in Newton's face because he was unable to comprehensively prove Mass? No. We take theories and build upon them.BryanBADD wrote:You yourself say that mathematics is the means to the meaning for any "scientific explanation of the universe that we can't objectively prove." If we can't objectively prove something, is it not just a theory? And if a theory are the scientists not arguing in the logical just as you say the theologians are? It would appear that the two groups differ in only the perspective from which they argue.
Scientists look at the world around us and form theories based on evidence, experimentation, and empirical data. Theologians look at the evidence, experiments, and empirical data and find a reason for still believing in a higher power.
So because people were more accustomed to passing data on by word of mouth, it isn't logical to assume things were lost, added, and changed over time? The Human mind isn't a tape recorder.Yes, at least until the time of Moses, the Bible was probably passed on orally. However, that is how things were passed on in that time. Of course that would not work today because we have become accustomed to writing everything down. In that time, that was the only way to pass information from generation to generation and they would have been much better at it. The results of the game 'Telephone' are irrelevant to that time.
You don't need to find the ends of space to measure the distance something has traveled. If you can measure the distance that something has traveled over, say, a period of hundreds of years (such as star charts from early observers) and measure the changes in it's position in relation to other stars, you can measure the distance that the universe has stretched in that time. This gives you a rough idea about the timeline of the galaxy (I believe, anyway. I'm no Astronomer.)So it is reliable to measure the stretch of space when we haven't even found the ends of space? Measuring background levels of radiation from the big bang assumes a couple of large things also. One must assume that there was a big bang, that the radiation came from said bang, and that the half-life and density of said radiation remained constant since that time (this is tough since the universe is stretching). They can't measure the distance that light has traveled. Tape measure is not long enough.javascript:emoticon(':D') To measure the amount of time that the light has traveled in order to arrive at that distance assumes that the speed of light is the same everywhere and always has been. A lot more assumptions here.
The amount of background radiation has no other cause. It is present everywhere, even off-world. There has also been no observable change in it's level, and until there IS change, the only explanation available is the big bang.
The speed of light has been proven to be a reliable constant in the universe. There is nothing in the universe besides supermassive black holes that alter the speed of light, and it is dishonest to believe that all light that travels through the universe first passes through that before hitting our Earth. Watch this video:
How do you explain observable quasars in the universe? Assuming the Universe is 5000 years old, their existence is impossible. I think you're taking too many assumptions here, not me.
I don't really believe that. The universe could very well have began with the big bang, there is evidence to support this theory. There is no evidence of ID Theory, and even less of Creationism. Until god peaks out from behind the curtain, it is an irrational belief to believe in god.BryanBADD wrote:I can almost agree with the dishonesty part, except that their is no other way concerning the universe. If my faith and belief in a Creator makes me dishonest, then those that claim the big bang theory, or any other theory, as scientific fact are just as dishonest. After all, you said yourself that these things can not be objectively proven.
[center]"He who has a strong enough why, can bear almost any how." - Nietzsche[/center]
- Awediot
- Student
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Equined Toothed foot of the Rockies
Post #40
No need for an excuse... I made it a point to let everyone know that...Ya either have evidence or ya don't and you'll either present it or ya won't. Considering you've implied I didn't want to see the evidence I just there and asked to see and now in the next breath you question my sincerity, I'm getting the feeling you're seeking some excuse to not present your evidence.
//...personally, I no longer even try to present "evidence", as I've learned it is in the eye of the beholder.//
...and I haven't come to post such a statement right in the middle of this type of conversation, and in this type of group, easily... I mean it...
I have reasons, attached to events which stretch some 40 years that have compounded into evidence that tries to push me into declaring He has proven Himself to me, and I don't just believe, I know....but those are fanatical thoughts..., So yes, I have evidence, and no ...it's not that I won't, but I can't simply present it like an attachment. it doesn't work like that...
...neither does the evidence you may have that your request is sincere...
> I use that mostly as an example, and to illustrate the bind needy atheists put theists in... You ask us essentially to PROVE God to you, or else you're not about to believe on your own (generally speaking)... It should not be a revelation or confession to anyone when I shamelessly answer back "WE CAN'T." ...Nothing In this ordinary world ever has, and the extraordinary, can be anything from a Chinese secret weapon to food poisoning to a brain tumor or God... Providing it opens yet another can of worms where I then am expected to convince you of it's source... It's a blackhole... and I'm done with that approach...
The issue isn't about the supply or quantity or quality of any subjective "evidence". It is all about why you and I look at the exact same thing, and get such different things from it... I can't give you something which will signify God to you...but I can offer you a different way to look everything you think you have already examined enough... The predictable debates about specific bits put on display as having become one persons personal sign from God, are a dead end...every time.
I ask atheists that question, as well as what they'd accept as sufficient evidence all the time... They are pointed and intimate questions everyone's logic can have a field day with. They push us past having to be logical (but smoke a bowl?!...I suspect you're not waiting for God for that one... I wouldn't)...You asked me what I'd do, you didn't say nothing about it having to be no logical thing to do.
There is a very logical train of thoughts and orderly reactions which should follow if you got what you casually ask for... 'God proves Himself to you. Then what?' [well, which God? - I didn't specify- What does He desire or demand of me? -you can ask Him/Her/It yourself now-...] Would you radically change you life if it displeased Him? How much? And why? What would or wouldn't motivate you? (questions I used handle better stoned...not so much these days)... It's meant to be a thought provoking hypothetical... I don't really care how logical what follows is, or if it's taken as purely rhetorical and not another word is said.... I just want people to seriously think it through...because signs from God that hit home have the tendancy of shattering the world you were living in, and dropping you onto an alien planet... If you discovered angels and demons were really in your room tonight, bowels would be the last thing on your mind...
God doesn't allow us the power to do that to each other... That is why evidence is nontransferable... He steps in when the time is right, not us.
How you answered those couple of questions is your indicator... You've yet to ask me why I might assume your want of evidence is insincere. I don't even know you. It's pretty rude of a newbie to be so bold and undebate-like...but you've not questioned my reasoning... It might be because I'm right, and your requests have become thoughtless and it's just methodically going through the motions again... But I don't know if that's true. I know it is true of some people though...You're insistence that I first prove my sincerity before you'll offer your evidence indicates to me I ain't never gonna come to know if your god exists.
If a God would hinge revealing Himself to you on the ploy of some internet oddball 's behavior, I'm not sure He'd be worth finding, and I'd ask you kindly not to bogart the party favors... a puff would be heaven at that point... Don't depend on me or any of us to deliver God to you in any sort of correct or logical way... He blows minds and drives normal people onto soap boxes with signs they used to find pride in mocking... You've nothing to prove to me, and you know how sincere you are...don't you? ...I don't...
Food for thought...
I often argue theistic points before I nail the concept to the cross. I am what I think is a Christian because I believe Christ was and is the impression He meant to leave with us... The manifest God who let us treat Him worse than we ever would some poor animal...and then usews it to build a bridge back to Him... I try to undermine the (often justified) defense mechanism and wild stereotypes the word "Christian" triggers in people so we can talk with our guards down (but I'm guilty of doing it to "atheists" too... One of the most frustrating things in these groups is all the shadow boxing going on...and arguing against what we assume we've heard all before, despite the actual words we skim saying nothing like that...[and my wall sized posts don't help matters much] >but whatcha gonna do?Fair 'nuff. I'd add that some assumptions were made as this is the Christianity & Apologetics section of Debating Christianity. I'd also agree though that if you ain't arguing about it being all christiany, then yeah, my assumptions did kinda run on ahead of it.
[now, where'd that bowl go?]
- Flying Tiger Comics
- Newbie
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:02 am
Post #41
Goat wrote:BryanBADD wrote:Heresis wrote:That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.I'm no scientist, but just because science can't explain something at this exact moment doesn't mean it's not explainable, much less the product of a god. Where do people get this notion that science must know everything for it to be considered accurate? Guess what, science changes with the evidence. Religion changes on the whims of those in control of it.
Thank you for making our point.
Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.
Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.
Well at the risk of offending your obviously firmly held beliefs, how does one prove the existence of self-image? Or objective insanity? Or legal guilt?
By first establishing a reference frame and a baseline methodology.
If the reference frame is rigged to exclude strange phenomena, including those labelled according to religious beliefs, not only is the baseline methodology derived horribly unscientific, it's also nothing more than a confirmation bias factory.
Hence, the clear and manifest difference between the rent seekers and time wasters who fill so many universities and the pioneers who did, said and measured things free of scientific dogma. Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.
A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour, and equal numbers of atheists are howlingly irrational in their apparent dedication to cheap and false skepticism, which is not in fact skeptical, but simple contrarianism dressed in po-faced smugness.
I say this as a lapsed atheist of considerable po-faced smugness. What a joyless bunch of weirdos we were during so many debates.
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #42
Flying Tiger Comics wrote:There, I have to totally disagree with you. FOr example, when it comes to the phenomena that is known as the 'big bang' by the layman, we have this thing known as 'Empirical Evidence' .Goat wrote:BryanBADD wrote:Heresis wrote:That would also have to include God. Just because science can't explain God at this exact moment doesn't mean He doesn't exist. The fact is that science seems to say that if we can't explain God or the things of God, then He obviously doesn't exist.I'm no scientist, but just because science can't explain something at this exact moment doesn't mean it's not explainable, much less the product of a god. Where do people get this notion that science must know everything for it to be considered accurate? Guess what, science changes with the evidence. Religion changes on the whims of those in control of it.
Thank you for making our point.
Of course, when it comes to the entire 'God concept', each of these people who believe have such DIFFERENT concepts for it.. and there is absolutely zero empirical evidence for this God.
Now, if someone could come up with a methodology for testing if a deity actually exists, rather than playing word games, that would be something.
Well at the risk of offending your obviously firmly held beliefs, how does one prove the existence of self-image? Or objective insanity? Or legal guilt?
By first establishing a reference frame and a baseline methodology.
If the reference frame is rigged to exclude strange phenomena, including those labelled according to religious beliefs, not only is the baseline methodology derived horribly unscientific, it's also nothing more than a confirmation bias factory.
Hence, the clear and manifest difference between the rent seekers and time wasters who fill so many universities and the pioneers who did, said and measured things free of scientific dogma. Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.
A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour, and equal numbers of atheists are howlingly irrational in their apparent dedication to cheap and false skepticism, which is not in fact skeptical, but simple contrarianism dressed in po-faced smugness.
I say this as a lapsed atheist of considerable po-faced smugness. What a joyless bunch of weirdos we were during so many debates.
As for 'scientific rigor' for a lot of religious beliefs.. .. Again, I am going to have to disagree. It goes into metaphysical claims.. .. and ontological arguments.. but 'scientific rigor'.. I have yet to see that. I see a lot of 'arguments' where they worked backwards from their untestable and unprovable conclusion, to come up with premises to lead them to that conclusion, and those premisis are equally untestable and unprovable. Then.. they make huge leaps of logic that are not justified.
But, scientific rigor.. Haven't seen it.
Maybe someone can surprise me, and show me an example of 'scientific rigor' that is well, real science, and not pseudoscience. I would love to see something better than the nonsense that is 'Shroud of Turin' or the ontological arguments that are so highly flawed.
Can you give substantial examples of this 'scientific rigor' that isn't double talk and nonsense?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
-
- Under Probation
- Posts: 772
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:48 am
Post #43
Incorrect. Big Bang has nothing to do with coming from literal nothing. It's an inflation of energy from it's source energy state. Science says the Universe came from the very energy it's made of. It's the fracturing of symmetry to which is where one force becomes four.. And understanding how that happened and how it works isn't the easy part. It's surprises me when I see theists who make arguments on subjects they know nothing about as if they do.Big bang is nothing more than a different kind of ex nihilo, no amount of "mathematics" changes that.
They can't even do that in archeology much less anything else.. You have got to be kidding me here.. I think you would have been better off saying that a lot of religious people have produced quality science and have shown scientific rigor. At least then your statement would hold some truth to it.. But the religious organization, and the religions themselves? Well, there might be some honest one's out there that accept science..But the others? Heh,.. not a chance! They have too much to lose.A lot of religious beliefs contain a lot of logic and even scientific rigour,
- Awediot
- Student
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 3:54 pm
- Location: Equined Toothed foot of the Rockies
Post #44
I have yet to find science offend my belief in God, or God conflict with our discovery of facts... But I'm a 'thank God for evolution' kind of guy...
Now, should I interpret innerancy or literalism from the Bible, then yes, science and forbidden fruit, cunning, eloquent serpents and trees which dare trap us into the need for morals, are all just Satanic...and my pearls of lazer focused wisdom just waste away among your brilliant but soulless swine-ishness... ( I'd add another notch to my crutch of faith, but it's whittled to a twig as it is... and right when I need to lean on it the most...)
The scientific method is simply the best way to be able to know things. It's elemental, lowest common denominator sense... 'Science' however, is the result of using that simply utility as a commodity, a philosophy, business and flip side to religion... It is an invaluable tool we'd still be on all fours without...
Now, should I interpret innerancy or literalism from the Bible, then yes, science and forbidden fruit, cunning, eloquent serpents and trees which dare trap us into the need for morals, are all just Satanic...and my pearls of lazer focused wisdom just waste away among your brilliant but soulless swine-ishness... ( I'd add another notch to my crutch of faith, but it's whittled to a twig as it is... and right when I need to lean on it the most...)
The scientific method is simply the best way to be able to know things. It's elemental, lowest common denominator sense... 'Science' however, is the result of using that simply utility as a commodity, a philosophy, business and flip side to religion... It is an invaluable tool we'd still be on all fours without...