“Although, i admit science doesn't know EVERYTHING, religion knows very little, and because of this, it makes up supernatural stories with no means to falsify or demonstrate with evidence.”
To me, the above statement has been offered [by you] as some sort of “comparative defense” of Science; seemingly presented in an attempt to counter what you apparently perceive as being an assault on your chosen field of interest. With respect to my own interaction with you, I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to either “sway” or “convert” you to ANY belief system; nor do I desire to somehow challenge any premise which is regarded as the "Scientific Truth" or even the accepted methodology employed when determining that "truth".
The ideas I have presented to you are ONLY for your consideration as to their interest (if any) to you. If you find one or more of these concepts to be worthy of further study or exploration, then that’s a good thing. If you don’t seem to be attracted to any particular thoughts offered, well…that’s good too.
You see, Awake_and_Aware, my own thoughts haven’t been simply tossed as an affront to your beliefs; to be honest and as stated previously, quite the contrary is true. I actually admire what I perceive as being the dedication of many explorers when they delve into the “Scientific Doctrine” - their fervent search for logic, order and, yes, “verifiable evidence” is, to me, nothing short of commendable.
However, and as previously stated, my own explorations into Science tended to prove insufficient with respect to the measure of personal satisfaction I gleaned FROM those explorative adventures. It was as if I was “exploring only the stem of the apple” and simultaneously overlooking its peel, its core, its flesh, its very entirety. I concluded that I needed to view my “reality” from what I considered as being a more complete, more “inclusive” vantage point. But that’s just me…and I truly wish you well and much success with your own explorations and experience within this great physical adventure.
By the way, I offer the following questions for your consideration:
“Within the realm of “Flatland”, what manner of “verifiable evidence” could the two-dimensional scientists have sought out (or even recognized AS “verifiable evidence”) to confirm the validity of a three-dimensional sphere?”…
“Would the absence of “verifiable evidence” (if this turns out to be the case) related to the existence of the three-dimensional sphere actually confirm its non-existence and, if so, would this claim, this conclusion of non-verifiability/non-existence be "true" only to the laws and beliefs associated with the two-dimensional Scientific Doctrine?”
A Happy New Year To You Awake_and_Aware! You’ve given me much to ponder…and I thank you for it.
I also thank you, once again, for listening.
edit on 31-12-2010 by Mindpeace because: (no reason given)