Why don't some people like being created?

[Walkntune]

So do you accept or reject the scientific method?

I believe in being creative and intuitive and using your imagination and looking for all possibilities.This opens awareness.And then lining up your rational and logical thinking.
I believe in being willing to take a chance and step beyond the unknown! Call it any method you want to!I let reality be reality and just open up to it and then rationalise it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe in being creative and intuitive and using your imagination and looking for all possibilities.This opens awareness.And then lining up your rational and logical thinking.
I believe in being willing to take a chance and step beyond the unknown! Call it any method you want to!I let reality be reality and just open up to it and then rationalise it.

Do you agree that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of distinguishing fact from fiction?

It's a yes or no question.

 

[McBell]

Do you agree that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of distinguishing fact from fiction?

It's a yes or no question.

You assume he is not trying to set himself up an out...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

My views of science are to stand on reality first. I won't stand on a bunch of math formulas that may or may not line up with true reality!

I'd say this is about as clearly stated as anything you've posted. It says far more than you intended.

 

[Walkntune]

Do you or do you not agree that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of distinguishing fact from fiction?

It's a yes or no question.

No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost.Reality never changes only our awareness.Science will continue to change(it always has) and everything you are standing on now you may find to not be true tomorrow.The scientific method rationalises all reality in your awareness and religion expands and contracts your awareness. I believe both are needed and important.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's a yes or no question.

You don't seem to have to have read many of his posts. There is no such thing as a Yes or No answer in his world. That would be to "mainstream". He has to open up his intuition, and visualize his response.

 

[Walkntune]

You don't seem to have to have read many of his posts. There is no such thing as a Yes or No answer in his world. That would be to "mainstream". He has to open up his intuition, and visualize his response.

Did you skip the first word of my post and read want you wanted to?

 

[darkendless]

You don't seem to have to have read many of his posts. There is no such thing as a Yes or No answer in his world. That would be to "mainstream". He has to open up his intuition, and visualize his response.

I cannot be reasonable with people who have no decisive power.

I imagine them as people who walk into McDonalds and after 45 minutes of staring at the menu panels, they walk out because making a decision makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Walkntune]

I cannot be reasonable with people who have no decisive power.

I imagine them as people who walk into McDonalds and after 45 minutes of staring at the menu panels, they walk out because making a decision makes them uncomfortable.

No its not the best method
First line of my post.Now take this and it cancels out the fact you say I am indecisive and
it leaves you with the fact you just can't be reasonable.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost.

Then you're wrong. It's "instinct awareness of reality" that lead people to believe that the sun orbits the earth, the earth was flat and that maggots were spontaneously generated upon the rotting bodies of the dead. If people were all born with an inherent awareness of what is true and what is false, their would be no deception or ignorance in the world. You couldn't be more demonstrably wrong.

Reality never changes only our awareness. Science will continue to change(it always has) and everything you are standing on now you may find to not be true tomorrow.

The ability for science to change and adapt based on new information makes it more reliable, not less.

The scientific method rationalises all reality in your awareness and religion expands and contracts your awareness. I believe both are needed and important.

Religion has never been capable of "expanding" awareness. Name one question, in all of history, to which the answer was ultimately discovered by religious beliefs.

 

[darkendless]

No its not the best method
First line of my post.Now take this and it cancels out the fact you say I am indecisive and
it leaves you with the fact you just can't be reasonable.

It is a self regulating method of finding the most appropriate scientific solution. Its not meant to be the best considering it covers a broad spectrum of science.
Your problem is you seek "the best." This is common among people who in reality, have no idea what people in science actually do. That and religious teaches that perfection may be found in reality when in fact it ain't so.

It is unreasonable to expect something perfect. Don't worry, before i actually started field work as a geotech, i thought every test i would do would bring perfect results if i followed methodology perfectly. The reality is that perfection is unattainable, and if for some reason it is achieved, then something is definately wrong.

For the record i am reasonable to people who can critically analyse. You have not demonstrated such a trait. You simply look for holes. Unless you can theorize something better you're really in no position to criticise.

 

[darkendless]

Then you're wrong. It's "instinct awareness of reality" that lead people to believe that the sun orbits the earth, the earth was flat and that maggots were spontaneously generated upon the rotting bodies of the dead. If people were all born with an inherent awareness of what is true and what is false, their would be no deception or ignorance in the world. You couldn't be more demonstrably wrong.

For people like me who are philosophically retarded, what on earth is awareness?

The ability for science to change and adapt based on new information makes it more reliable, not less.

The reason the scientific method exists is to determine the most reliable method, not simply the "best" one, so you are quite right (edit: pretty sure i just reworded what you said so excuse my idiocy).

Religion has never been capable of "expanding" awareness. Name one question, in all of history, to which the answer was ultimately discovered by religious beliefs.

Religion changes 200 years behind everything else. Remember, some people still believe we were underwater 5000 years ago

 

[Autodidact]

I except the fact species evolve. To what extent or how abrpt of a process I am not sure.
For everything to have evolved gradually there would be many, many fossils uncovered.

This is not correct. There is no relationship between how species evolve and how many fossils are found. Fossilization is a very rare event. If there were no fossils of any kind, ToE would still be correct and well-supported.

I believe it was a more abrupt change between certain forms leaving less traces of evidence.

Are you trying to describe punctuated equilibrium, the predominant modern version of ToE?

Further, my guess is that you have absolutely no idea how many fossils of what sort we do have, am I right?

So basically, yes?

 

[Walkntune]

For people like me who are philosophically retarded, what on earth is awareness?

Awareness is in the fight and flight instinct that keeps us and animals in tune with reality around us for survival.

e reason the scientific method exists is to determine the most reliable method, not simply the "best" one, so you are quite right (edit: pretty sure i just reworded what you said so excuse my idiocy).

Rational thinking comes into play to rationalize the reality that we become aware of through our awareness or fight and flight instinct. Call it whatever method you wish but rational thinking and awareness(also where intuition is from) are both needed and important.

 

[Autodidact]

I believe in being creative and intuitive and using your imagination and looking for all possibilities.This opens awareness.And then lining up your rational and logical thinking.
I believe in being willing to take a chance and step beyond the unknown! Call it any method you want to!I let reality be reality and just open up to it and then rationalise it.

So do you accept or reject the scientific method?

btw, your general evasiveness confirms my suspicions about your honesty. Honest people who know what they're trying to say are not evasive.

 

[Autodidact]

No its not the best method. I think your instinctive awareness of reality is first and foremost.Reality never changes only our awareness.Science will continue to change(it always has) and everything you are standing on now you may find to not be true tomorrow.The scientific method rationalises all reality in your awareness and religion expands and contracts your awareness. I believe both are needed and important.

Other than this being gibberish, I take is as a "no," you reject the scientific method as a way to learn about the natural world?

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., so science doesn't work. If you want to learn something, say, is the world round or flat, you use what method to do that?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's a yes or no question.

Did you skip the first word of my post and read want you wanted to?

Did you skip the last sentence of his?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Rational thinking comes into play to rationalize the reality that we become aware of through our awareness or fight and flight instinct.

That sentence means no different from: "rational thinking comes into play once we're aware of something". Which is obvious.

Call it whatever method you wish but rational thinking and awareness(also where intuition is from) are both needed and important.

But you claimed that intuition was the most reliable means of distinguishing fact from fiction. This is simply not true no matter what way you try and look at it. Time and time again, the scientific method and scientific rationality have demonstrated themselves to be the best known method for determining what is true and what is false - even if it goes against our primitive instincts.

 

[Walkntune]

Then you're wrong. It's "instinct awareness of reality" that lead people to believe that the sun orbits the earth, the earth was flat and that maggots were spontaneously generated upon the rotting bodies of the dead. If people were all born with an inherent awareness of what is true and what is false, their would be no deception or ignorance in the world. You couldn't be more demonstrably wrong.

It was not instinct awareness that was wrong, it was false rationalisation that people believed to be true.