so tell us why (and not how)Not true.
Why is the sky blue?
ditto aboveWhy are aeroplane wings shaped the way they are?................
etc
so tell us why (and not how)Not true.
Why is the sky blue?
ditto aboveWhy are aeroplane wings shaped the way they are?................
etc
just see"What is the meaning of life?" Hmmm... I don't think 'science' can answer this question because the question assumes itself as the premise.
Only because you think your emotional state is the pinnacle of scientific reasoning ... which is hardly scientific in the real sense"Why is lightgigantic so annoying?" Now, this one I think I can scientifically answer.
just see
science doesn't even have a monopoly on all "what" questions
"What is the meaning of life?" Hmmm... I don't think 'science' can answer this question because the question assumes itself as the premise.
"Why is lightgigantic so annoying?" Now, this one I think I can scientifically answer.
Since you think whatever you think is absolute there's no arguing with you then is there?
Didn't say I know you I was only making an observation.
I wasn't being personal or biased, I was only making a valid observation.
just see
science doesn't even have a monopoly on all "what" questions
Than you cannot be ONE.![]()
A guide for the perplexed.
Once, science never existed in a finite universe. Before science emerged, the universe had to be existant; thereafter there was still no science. Like one cannot issue a parking fine when cars never existed; in this case, the car fines emerge after the law is established relating to car fines; here, the laws relating to car fines is the analogy to what science constitutes: the observation of laws, which emerged before science, while the laws emerged after the universe emerged.
The equation is: universe; universal laws; science.
The ToE error places the last as the first, in effect proclaiming the car manual proves there is no car maker. Then they call Genesis, which introduced science and evolution, and placing these premises in their correct poisiton, as myth. But compare - Genesis says:
V1. First emerged the universe, and that it is finite.
V2. No laws existed at this point [Formless; lawless].
V3. Then the formless was turned to form [Laws emerged].
V4. Then came the first action - based on V3 above.
V5. SCIENCE: The observation of the already existing laws in action.
Remove a single factor in the abive equation, and science dies.
as usual you are misquoting just to make yourself feel smarter..
i said i was THE ONE!
Would you like to borrow my salad shooter for that word salad?
Just because scientists were not around in the past to present a model of the universe, doesn't mean that when scientists were around, they could not observe the Universe and build a model.
Scientists were around. They declared the universe is finite, invented the oldest and most accurate calendar, introduced Monotheism, all world accepted laws, the exact date for speech endowed humans, separated medicine from occultism for the first time, recorded humanity's earliest history - and all in the world's first alphabetical book. Thou shall not confuse the Hebrew bible with the Gospels and Quran with your salad shooter!![]()
Maybe, but it was funny.
I think you need to learn how to make better observations.
For one thing, "Absolutes" don't exist in Science.
And there ARE certain things I believe in. Even if they are not spiritual.
But when it comes to logic, critical thinking and being rational, one must weigh observation against plausibility.
Simply because I speak out against irrational thought, dishonest tactics, irrational justification of beliefs or religious arrogance, does not mean that I think that anything I think is absolute.
Rather, this strikes me as a fearful approach on your part. You cannot disregard the validity of my statements, so you attack my character instead.
You think you made an observation? No... Don't lie to yourself. You can lie to me all you want-- but be honest with yourself at least.
One cannot make proper observations when influenced by personal bias.