In Support of the more frequently disregarded...

[agapooka]

For the rest of your post...If I would to go into a debate we would just end up in circle argument.Because for me it would be like disproving god or for you proving something that isnt there.But yet If you can twist words to that amount that it appears to be there I cannot win nor can you.I can invent dozen of green spaghetti monsters but that doesnt make them real...or does it...

It would just be another mindless brawl...

Not at all. It's really quite simple. If you can't prove that something exists, it's POSSIBLE that it doesn't and if it's possible for it to exist or not exist, then, how can you know if it exists? You can't know.

Seeing a thing does not constitute proof of the existence of that thing. It only constitutes proof of having seen a thing, but says nothing about the true nature of what was seen. It could have been an illusion. Because it is a possibility that it was an illusion, however unlikely you believe that possibility to be, you cannot know exactly what you've seen. This goes for other senses, too. That said, KNOWLEDGE cannot come through the senses. Understanding can, but knowledge is absolute.

I gain an understanding of my environment through my senses, but I do not know my environment. I do not know what is present in it and what is not. I do not even know what my environment is. As far as I'm concerned, for something to be knowledge, it must:

1. Be completely true.
2. Necessarily be true.
3. Be accompanied with the reasoning that demonstrates that it is completely and necessarily true.

Otherwise, it is an understanding, but not knowledge. Understandings can be false, can be true, can be partially true and partially false. They are just what you understand something to be. Science contributes to understanding only, but so does religion. In fact, one of the only fields that's actually interested in knowledge is a field of philosophy called epistemology.

Agapooka

[unseen1]

Actually its not that simple.Well is simple for you because you believe in it for me its just twisting words around.

First I never argued anything about what is definite,what's illusion or anything for that matter.I only argued that science cant answer those questions because it doesnt operate in that sphere.It can only research in its own sphere...it cant argue with you if cup is solid or not in your way.It can give you answers about that cup but if you end your argument with:"how can you be 100% sure..."With that,science cant cope...Its like having debate with a liar,I say I saw an elephant walking down the road,he will say I saw hundred of them.There is no way to kill your argument although there are tons of evidence.That why I dont like debating this kind of stuff because how you are seeing things nothing is absolute(well actually nothing is but you know what I mean).If I would mark a Spamcity in the middle of England,how can you be sure that that city doesnt exist?How can anyone be sure that I didn't create that city?

Further more what is science concerned.If we would to be living in matrix or whatever and we could say that its not real but still science would be correct in that matrix.Because it would explore environment that is in and it would come to same conclusion 1+1=2.Sides must match on both side of equation,no matter how creator made them to look like.

And last religion doesnt teach anything.Its made up lie that was repeated so many times that people tend to believe in it.And it feels so threatened and violated by science that will do what ever it can to make it look like some devils religion although it has nothing to do with religion it self.Science on the other hand no one invented.Its just a word that describe many activities people do to explore their environment.It has limitation and it only explore only its own sphere but every once in a while it peeks out of it and destroy one religions myth in the process so it has to be some sort of new religion right?

Im really not your man to debate with you about "realities".It was never my intent to do so.I just wanted to stress out that science has nothing to do with morals,meaning of life,philosophy etc and that in first post of this topic was wrongfully accused of several things it has nothing to do with them.

[agapooka]

how you are seeing things nothing is absolute(well actually nothing is but you know what I mean)

If we would to be living in matrix or whatever and we could say that its not real but still science would be correct in that matrix.

Well, we can't know the absolute. Science is a way to explore perceived reality. We just don't know if that reality is an illusion. The only "evidence" we have comes from what could possibly be an illusion. It would be tautological to accept it.

And last religion doesnt teach anything.

Umm, wrong. It may teach truth, lies or a mixture of both, but it does have its own idiosyncratic teachings.

Its made up lie that was repeated so many times that people tend to believe in it.

And there's a possibility that when we say that we don't live in an illusionary world, that that's a lie too. We can't know. Don't tell me that you have evidence, because the only evidence you have comes from the illusion. At least, if it is an illusion, we can't trust the evidence. It's like asking someone if they are saying the truth. The honest man will say "yes". The liar might also say "yes".

And it feels so threatened and violated by science that will do what ever it can to make it look like some devils religion although it has nothing to do with religion it self.

Maybe, but that's not what I'm doing. I also never said that science is evil. I'm exploring the situation with logic alone. Nothing else.

Science on the other hand no one invented.Its just a word that describe many activities people do to explore their environment.

The scientific method, however, WAS invented. It is based upon the assumption that the senses do not deceive.

It has limitation and it only explore only its own sphere but every once in a while it peeks out of it and destroy one religions myth in the process so it has to be some sort of new religion right?

I am not a religious man. My conclusion that science is like a religion (and I've even called it a religion) has nothing to do with how I may or may not feel that other religions have been threatened thereby. I really don't care about that. Religions have always been in conflict with each other and science is no exception. Just because people have more faith in the principles of science than in the principles of mythos does not separate science's role in this evolutionary process from times when people started to have more faith in the principles of Christianity than in those of their so-called pagan religions.

Im really not your man to debate with you about "realities".It was never my intent to do so.I just wanted to stress out that science has nothing to do with morals,meaning of life,philosophy etc and that in first post of this topic was wrongfully accused of several things it has nothing to do with them.

This argument has nothing to do with morals, nor does it have anything to do with the meaning of life. Science and philosophy are, however, related, regardless of your denial thereof. In fact, the principles of science are based upon the epistemological school of thought called Empiricism. Epistemology is the field of philosophy that explores knowledge.

My argument, however, is purely philosophical. What scientists often fail to realise is that their own world view rests upon philosophy - a school of thought in particular. When you state that science and philosophy are unrelated, you are gravely mistaken. Of philosophy and of the questions that it sought to answer, there rose different dominating approaches to answer these questions. Before, mythos was used and now the prevailing idea seems to be that the senses can bring us closer to answering them.


Agapooka

[unseen1]

Maybe, but that's not what I'm doing. I also never said that science is evil. I'm exploring the situation with logic alone. Nothing else.
Agapooka

You didnt but first post in this topic did and thats why I replied here.I only replied to you is because religion and science dont have anything in common...well except "illusion"...we know or we understand.
Science only measure stuff,explain things in its own world.And those things for us a real.You can argue about me being sure about it but thats beside the point.For us everything science does works so even if this would to be an illusion or whatever science would be correct for us.And that's what's important when it comes to science,for the rest of it If its illusion or not,if its wrong on a grander scale that science cannot know and you said it yourself why.

[[KMA]Avenger]

because religion and science dont have anything in common

isn't the core essence of science and religion supposed to be, the pursuit of truth?

[unseen1]

because religion and science dont have anything in common

isn't the core essence of science and religion supposed to be, the pursuit of truth?

What truth?When was the last time you saw any religion searching for the truth?

[[KMA]Avenger]

please read what i wrote, i said "the core essence", not the modern practice of religion

so, i ask again...isn't the core essence of science and religion supposed to be, the pursuit of truth?

[unseen1]

What modern practise...?Why do you think that people 2 millennia ago thought different?They asked same questions that we are asking now only with abscesses of electricity and engine.They also had fast food stands,stadiums,school,inflation,recession...
There is no modern practise of religion if by that you mean that religion was once pure faith and that it wasnt lead by selfish,powerhunger,greedy people.Same stuff trough history Im afraid.
But the core essence of the religion is...to be honest I havent got a slightest Idea what that might be ...

But seriously what truth you mean?

Why would science be searching for any truth?

So we invented numbers...counting...adding...then someone thought that there could be zero...why is this searching for truth?

For me science doesnt have any higher meaning.It is what it is word that describes many activities people do.It isnt any kind of religion,it doesnt have any higher meaning rather just to upgrade our knowledge or should I say our understanding of our world or should I say world we perceive.

[[KMA]Avenger]

i have a sever migraine and my eye is killing me...

forget i said anything

[Thriller]

Religeon doesn't seek the truth it presupposes it already knows it.

scientists have come up with theories outside of what we have perceived(in a realist meaning). Alternate realities, black holes, string theory. It just builds upon a foundation of observed truths. Through observation and experimentation science expands our perception.

You can make the argument that what can't be perceived may not exist, because there is no evidence to suggest it does.