Quote:
Honestly, I've never heard of anyone using this view. Either your stretching what it actually says, or it doesn't say that. I know many science majors, and none would believe some bogus line about the Earth magically inflating over night. So I can't believe that this is the majority belief, lest you are greatly misrepresenting it.
You're still miss the point. Stop for two seconds and listen(read). Its irrational to think this way and no one does. However the way the system of thought is constructed demands that kind of conclusion you get when you follow it to the letter. Science likes to interpret the world in terms of that system when it works and then when it doesn't explain it differently but still pretend its realism. That's my problem. You can't use the system to explain the world and say that's how it is and then go do something different when it doesn't work. That reduces credibility, which is my only real problem with science itself. Quote:
I didn't say it was disproven. I said there's no reason to believe it. The belief that you should believe nothing until something is proven (which you are arguing with your philosophies; I just took it a step further and assumed that the world we experience is real) is much greater than believing everything until something is disproven.
You've missed the point. To assume the world is real is no different than to assume there is a god. I mean there's no reason to believe there is a world for science to explain. Even if you make the assumption there is a world. What is reality? What is true? We're far from even having a working concept and definition of either. It would seem to to me that for science to come forth and say this or that is true and real. They ought to define it better than "cause it works and can be repeated." What if tomorrow it doesn't work? Quote:
Yes, philosophy is great. But nihilism will get you nowhere in life. There's a difference between what you believe to be possible and what you believe as you live. I, for one, am absolutely in love with the solipsist point of view. But at the same time, I don't go around pretending no one else exists or matters. I believe it's possible, even likely, but I don't base my everyday judgement off of it. The point of the topic, imo, is which do you base your judgement off of - objective scientific evidence, even if it does chance, or subjective religious evidence that science often contradicts [and quite powerfully contradicts in many cases; e.g. evolution, depending on your belief, and homosexuality being a choice]. Now, if your religion is accepting of these scientific advancements, and you believe evolution exists and homosexuality isn't a choice, etc., then it doesn't matter which you choose. I can't think of any other meaning of "Which would you choose?" besides "Which would you choose if they were to contradict?" Since science doesn't say there is no god, and at most "there's no reason to believe in a god," it's not really a religious view, and one is perfectly capable of believing in both.
Quantum physics tell us that everything you experience and see is merely the condensing of ever possibility to that second of time that you're there experiencing it, or rather measuring. Bounce a ball freeze time for a moment while its in the air just about to come back down. The ball is literally everywhere in the universe at that second until it condenses to that movement. That is science on the highest level and it establishes that reality is possibility. That everything that is possible is happening and exist to some extent some how. 