3 ms·

Science tries its best to discover the correct explanation for phenomena, and accepts gaps in knowledge as a natural consequence of the ongoing nature of its pu

Science tries its best to discover the correct explanation for phenomena, and accepts gaps in knowledge as a natural consequence of the ongoing nature of its pursuit of the truth. You are welcome to believe what you want, but you must understand that accepting faith-based explanations with zero supporting evidence is a fundamentally different sort of thing. Of course you think you have the answers, and that people still grubbing around looking for their own are short-sighted dummies, if you're willing to accept answers that somebody simply made up out of thin air. > Also, the insistence on a distinction between "alien" and "divine" has no rational basis. How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings.

TimTheTinker 8y ago
I'm not arguing with the scientific method, or the power of looking for natural explanations through experimentation. It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? > How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings. My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. > zero evidence Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.)
- caconym_ 8y ago
  > It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards. > My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not. > Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.) If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.

TimTheTinker 8y ago

I'm not arguing with the scientific method, or the power of looking for natural explanations through experimentation. It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? > How do you figure that? They seem quite different to me, given the properties that are usually ascribed to hypothetical divine beings. My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. > zero evidence Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.)

caconym_ 8y ago
> It's just that examining evidence related to past events can only go so far in explaining their cause. If you assume natural causes all the way back, you will inevitably reach the limit of a natural chain of events. If the origin of life isn't a big enough question, perhaps the origin of the big bang is -- how does anyone go there without stepping into the metaphysical? Why speculate in the absence of real knowledge? Maybe some questions simply cannot be answered? Maybe some answers are simply beyond our reach for now? Faced with these gaps, If I'm going to get metaphysical, I'd sooner reach inwards than outwards. > My point is that on the surface, philosophically speaking, there's no difference between the two explanations beyond their starting assumptions. Pretty vague, and I disagree in any case, I think—there seems to be a great difference between the two. One is based on phenomena we have directly observed (comets, life on Earth, etc.), and the other is not. > Not at all. Everything that exists constitutes evidence for him in one way or another. (It’s late. Can provide more details tomorrow if you’re interested.) If you presuppose that "He" exists and work backwards from there, sure. Otherwise no, I don't think so. Willing to read more, if you write it.