I'm writing all of this again since my browser crashed. I'll write it fast and it won't be as good. That's kind of ... a bummer.
One note first: I know it's all the rage for americans to blame communism for everything. What you're looking for is fascism, stalinism, or even authoritarianism in general.
Isn't the whole cornerstone of science that you come up with a theory for how something works, and try and recreate things in order to prove the theory? I'm not saying that we need to create a new universe to find out, but things can be mimicked on a much smaller scale. For example - we can't create another sun, but we can mimick it's operation in some experimental fusion reactors.
One often overlooked concept is mathematics and logic. Many theories directly follow from mathematical or logical proofs and are later backed by experiment, though often indirectly.
Which is precisely my point. Can you rigorously re-create enough to know that your theory is true? The universe is an infinitely complex system of interconnected layers of other systems. How, realistically, can one re-create even a fraction of that?
You're missing the point here. You don't have to re-create everything for an experiment. Before you make your experiment, you look at all the factors involved and decide which ones are important and therefore should be included in the experiment. You'll just try to get the important factors right when carrying out your experiment. If it succeeds and produces results you'd expect, that's nice. If it doesn't, you probably forgot something or your theory was wrong, but that's okay too--no need to be ashamed if something doesn't work in science. Actually, disproving a theory is absolutely brilliant, as there's one less to choose from afterwards.
Let's just give you an example so you'll understand the point I'm trying to make:
When measuring your weight using a scale, you don't take into account the different gravitation on earth. It varies from place to place and is quite accurately measurable with medium-priced equipment. Even measuring your own weight is an experiment, although none of great interest to science I'm afraid; so, knowing this, do you still trust your scale, even if it doesn't take everything into account? I guess you do. There are inaccuracies and you might be aware of them, but even if your scale is +-1 kg off, you won't doubt your weight alltogether.
What if we don't have the capability to understand enough? I've been trying to show this: we have too much faith in science.
I wouldn't call it faith. You'll have to accept the scientific principle, but if you think that's an entirely bad idea, one just can't argue with you. If you think the very foundation of science is wrong, there really is no point in carrying on any discussion on that whatsoever.
Looking at the infinite complexity of nature, to me points to a source of infinite knowledge. Since we can only be of finite knowledge, that, to me, points to the supernatural. Why do we try to fit the infinite into the confines of what is finite?
Is nature really infinite? I don't think so. It's large, but not infinite. Can we ever know everything? Probably not (if we should ever do at one point, we'll just make up our own new problems and challenges. Ask a mathematician, they'll know). But why should we just stop exploring it alltogether? That's just stupid.
what is it you want to understand? do you want a law that can be applied to every aspect of the life cycle and applied to everyone on earth?
Me, I'm glad we dont have that capability. If you want it, you frighten me.
There are laws applying to everything and everyone: The laws of thermodynamics, for example, and conservation of energy.
scientists looked at infinite complexity and recognized that a handful of physical properties produced that complexity in predictable ways.
sometimes it pays not to be over-awed by nature.
Self-organization is the key here. I heard a talk about self-organization in biological systems not too long ago. Turns out the little crystals in your inner ear acting as weights for the acceleration sensor have a very specific shape which basically boils down to the right chemical mixture. Make the mixture, pour everything together and--poof!--there's your crystal. Amazing, really, but it's just the mixture you need to get right. Chemistry takes care of the rest. Incidentally, tooth enamel is created similarly.
I don't understand how you can just deny the existence of a soul. What is it that makes you, you? Your body is a factor, sure. But your personality, you real essence, can't be explained by chemical processes.
Then, please explain: What's a soul?
The brain is merely a meat machine. A complex one, but still governed by chemical reactions. A wonderfully complex example of self-organization, I might add. We don't know anything about the brain really. The few things we know were found out using appalingly inadequate equipment, and we didn't even scratch the surface.
I've always been suprised by the claim of open-mindedness, as its quite hypocritical. You can be open to the idea of a universal path of religion, but any exclusive spirituality, no, that's backwards and close-minded.
To be open to an idea, you have to consider all ideas with equal weight. You have to be able to allow an idea that you don't like, as much as the idea that you like.
Open-mindedness doesn't mean you'll have to treat every idea exactly the same. It just means you'll have to listen to other ideas and be generally open to your idea being horribly wrong. It doesn't mean you'll have to accept everything. It doesn't mean you can't defend your own idea. Heck, you even don't have to listen to any idea, you're even allowed to do some quality checks first, so you're not annoyed by ridiculous ideas and concepts which are just fundamentally wrong.
Open-mindedness doesn't mean apathy and indecisiveness. It just means being ready to question your very own ideals and thoughts based on the information that comes in.
If you have an all powerful creator, why doesn't the Creator have the right to set what rules he wishes on his Creation? Just because you don't want to be accountable to a higher power doesn't mean that it can't exist.
There's no point in discussing that.
I could as well say there are no time travellers because I don't wish for it. Heck, I could even say the world is exactly like it is because I made it so. So where's the difference between that and your model of god? Would you be even remotely serious about the world revolving around me? Of course not, because that's stupid. You'd probably tell me it wouldn't even be a premise good enough for a TV show.
If you look at the probability of it, its beyond the possibility. I really don't see how you can think that the universe could come to be by chance. Would you care to elaborate?
I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. If some of the natural constants were largely different, the universe would have turned out quite differently. We obviously do exist, though, so this is more a philosophical question.
Chance is just that: Chance, possibility. Once in a while, the odds are just right, and it happened to be here. That's why we don't exactly see loads of inhabited planets, do we?
Woah, since when am I dismissing intellect? You assume because I believe the world started differently, that I dismiss intellect?
Depending on where you put the start and how you try to interfere with science.
I'm just wondering the plausibility of the main premise of science, because I'm looking at what I can see, and it doesn't add up. Is that not the pursuit of intellect?
Care to elaborate?
I mean no harm, but my experience tells me most of the time it's just getting some facts wrong or not understanding them correctly. Often, mass media are to blame for exaggerating and overly simplifying complex relationships.
Why would I want something that changes when I find out I am wrong, if I have something that doesn't change, because it IS right?
Now you're getting silly. It's like making a meal and, after finding ketchup on vanilla ice cream tastes just terrible, remembering not to do this again. That's the "scientific" approach. The "un-scientific" approach would be saying it doesn't taste bad, because you always make delicious meals. And doing the same the next day and every day after.
It just doesn't make any sense at all. It's right because it's right? Don't make a fool of yourself.
Actually oil makes a lot of sense, in the light of a global flood. Rapid burial of plant and animal remains, under the pressure of new land masses, and a few thousand years. That makes oil, does it not?
No, it doesn't. A few thousand years will suffice for peat, but it takes much longer for oil.
By the way, without looking it up anywhere, may I ask what you'd think the approximate age (please don't look it up. Being wrong by some orders of magnitude is nothing to be ashemed of and I'd like your honest opinion) of the following entities is?
a) The universe
b) Our sun
c) Earth
d) Steven Ballmer
-huha