Not sure if this has any legs so please bear with me and be kind. I am getting so sick and tired of hearing scientists saying that because they have some math that works they are going to sit on that side of the fence and say that surely this is the way it is. The universe comes from nothing because I am looking at the evidence with my bias of trying to prove not the facts, but that my philosophical and religious beliefs are true because its supported by my maybe hypothesis. Everyone looks at everyone else to see what side of the fence they are on. Like minded people flock to each others banners, banners that support their preemptive respective positions. Answers to questions that are unanswerable or that are able to be interpreted in different ways. Why the hell do you want to know what side of the fence I am on? Do I have an approach that puts the scientists and the religious to shame? For a scientist to vehemently refute the existence of god based on evidence, but to then assume a philosophical (scientifically based) corollary that is evidentially unprovable and use it as tool in the bow/body of work which they essentially use to claim their own scientific theory of the cosmos over other scientific theories of the cosmos; and then use to ridicule others like theists, or even claim that it somehow MUST be true, is for me highly hypocritical. Matter can be in more than one position/configuration at once, even behave in different fashions depending on its circumstances. Why can one not apply this organisational-type to one's own thought processes and therefore one's personal philosophy? Ok, I feel that here, after my rant, and as I may possibly have you intrigued now, I am going to outline this mode through analogy. I have stated in the past on this forum snippets of my own approach to existence and infinity, I suppose specifically infinity. I am aware many shy away from the extent to which I myself embrace infinity. Generally mathematicians have a begrudging respect and dissatisfaction where they are involved, I believe. And theoretical physicists also seem to, in a lot of cases, not like the inconclusiveness of infinities. But I am known to (wrongly or rightly) take the stance that to truly understand existence one must learn to embrace infinity in all its garbs. To understand existence one must not take a subjective POV position, and instead think of infinity and about infinity by having one's mind's POV in every area of infinity at once, simultaneously. To process these ideas by looking at all from all angles, assuming only that existence is TRULY infinite and not that all that is is what one can see. Ok, I know by now you may be thinking that I am pushing my idea and that's hypocrisy as I was just moaning about fixing oneself to one mode of thought that espouses one's own existence-view. But I am not saying this theory is true or definitely my position, It's just my analogy Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Ok, so now confusion may possibly be setting in. I go back to the more simple analogy of being on one side of the fence. To religious nuts I say, why sit on that side of the fence? To the stalwart atheists who say I am an agnostic but god really isn't that possible surely in fact I really think he doesn't exist but I am just going to claim to be an agnostic so I don't lose arguments with religious nuts who say I am just as nutty as they are (which you are by the way), why sit on the other side of the fence? In fact why the hell don't you sit on the fence as I traditionally do: maybe this, maybe that. But that isn't why I am sharing my thoughts with you all today. I didn't plan to bore you with things you already know. I am attempting to forge a possibly new approach (which no doubt already has an entry in any philosophical dictionary; and I just don't own one so . . .). I am not sure that this position is even one that it is possible to take, but at this stage I am just stream of consciousness flowing onto the page (though surely I am just incorporating a long winded way of stating a basic and fundamental positional type?). Like a particle that could be in many places at once. Like a particle, I propose, that could not only be in many places at once but all places at once simultaneously. We may just be able to attain a position of being not only on both sides of the fence at the same time, but also sitting on the fence. But not even just that. A philosophical position where one is in all positions simultaneously (whether we have knowledge of them or not) with the express purpose of maintaining a floating, truly non-fixed position of everything is possible. Totally devoid of final judgement, corollary or conclusion. All avenues to still be trodden, but to not allow one's personal bias to filter into the searching process. Is this position even possible? Is this position even possible due to the specialisations and will of searches? Some atheist scientists tend to lean towards something from nothing because they see it as a way of putting the nail in the coffin of religion, despite the fact of course it doesn't because the well known logical weaknesses abide. Believers look to understand everything from the assumption it must be created so they seek to explain how it could be without scientists being able to refute it. To all of you I say: maybe all of you are right, and maybe all of you are wrong, all at the same time. Interesting? Or maybe all conjecturalisations are nothing until irrefutably proven. Or maybe it is best to just be in all positions simultaneously? Surely just by being a human with a belief/evidence system with bias or swayings in any direction one is actually affecting a process of searching and discovery which is forever destined to be flawed with the tendency to root around in the shit that comes out of the arse of our own dog? I was going to post this in 'Religion' but I think it applies not only to belief in god but to all assumptive behaviours. All that is known, all that is thought to be possible, is. God exists and god doesn't exist. God is all gods simultaneously, and yet he/she/it at the same time doesn't exist. We live in a universe from nothing and we also live in a closed universe, and an open one, and a flat one. Also it is holographic, and yet it isn't as well. Non-fixedisms of varying class. Does anyone have an alternative summary/interpretation of what I am trying to get at?