[folla rule]

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Welcome to ToeQuest folla; Sorry I missed your query. I do not normally discuss beliefs and thus don't subscribe to this forum.

Thank you for taking the time, albeit out with your normal point of interest.... to both reply to my query and to dismiss me in such a wonderfully aggressive manner.... perhaps if you're even more forceful i'll indeed concur with your point of view.

Originally Posted by dleviwing

Your response is one I would expect from a novice or someone attempting to suggest science is a religion or supports the existence of a god. You are quite wrong of course. Science is a methodology requiring quantitative measurements to obtain data to support a hypothesis. If you hypothesize that there is a god then in order to make your hypothesis conform to scientific methodology you must provide experimental data to support you hypotheses; otherwise science methodology says to prove it. Religious morons however always fail to accept the difference and attempt to impose belief as part of the science methodology. There is already too much unsupported belief being promoted as science; we do not need religion to impose more dogma.

It would appear you’re not such a keen watcher either.

Before i'm converted..... let me help you iron out the crinkles in your assumptive leaps.... assuming that your mind is open to the possibility.

i said "the effects of God (as distinct from religious organisations) can be measured" in that the belief and faith some people hold as real to themselves is a direct causal effect of their notion of a God upon their lifestyles and choices....

I akin this to the hypotheses of something like the big bang theory or perhaps something unseen like dark matter.... wherein the effects of the reaction/ substance can only be measured by causal effects... to my potentially erroneous mind, it is not out with the realms of possibility to think that just because someone's belief in something is not yet (here and now) able to be supported by empirical study or absolute proof.... does not make it valid for study for as yet unknown future methodologies. I see my mind as receptive to concepts which sit beyond the limits of impossibility not just possible.

what's more without sounding pedantic.... i only likened 'religious belief' (as distinct from religion) to 'science'... this to me is where, to my naive watching you appear to have made a galactic leap into sci-fi.....

i'll explain — science is indeed a methodology which must, as you rightly say, be supported by experiential observation. However, what you seem to be promoting is that anything that does not hold up to the benchmark of scientific study is to be dismissed.... belief isn't easily dismissed in this fashion as science history bears testament to.... many times in the past outlandish 'belief' or 'premise' have formed a benchmark of its own in that, it has created hypothesises which dwell outside current limits of science knowledge.... as a modern controversial illustration i hold up the theory 'fuzzy logic'... from history i'll moot the shape of the world (flat v round).

My point is that at the beginning of any theory (scientific or not) only the dedication and belief of those who maintain a faith in what they believe or the ideas they hold.... drives scientific understanding and eventually general acceptance... and it is this point where i believe that both science and religious belief share the same fundamental essence... and therefore reject what you say, and view 'belief' as already forming an integral part of science.

Finally, i would like to point out that very few, even well respected and eminent scientist would say they have 'proven' a theories.... simply that the evidence supports their hypothesis... does that not suggest a little less black and white than your own dogma demands? (side order of irony with that Sir??)

It would appear that you Sir do not hold as philosophical a mind as you might portray, but i thank you for the warm welcome.