Is it supposed to be a comfort that the empty rituals of science serve only to further the goals of science? You speak of the puzzle of life as if that is a concept that is unquestionable. Why would there even be a big picture? I have no problems with someone doing those meaningless things (like trying to "cure" a…

I dig it

or both!

(I am decidedly unpleasant, but that is neither here nor there).

I enjoyed the conversation, for the most part, as well. But please don't lump me in with those jerks who buy up patents to exploit the system. I have a very specific and well thought out view of existence, and I pride myself in it. Others may not agree, but I mean no personal attacks. I hope others don't attack me for…

Maybe it's simple; maybe it's not. Maybe it's logical; maybe it's not. (Can't watch videos at work, sadly)

Children are, almost by definition, arrogant. I guess you ascribe a negative connotation to that word? Perhaps it's just an immutable trait of most humans. That makes it neither good nor bad, I suppose.

Let's take your example: how would you know that gravity is consistent? Even if it has been shown to be so for a long time (and, really, we have no way of knowing if the universe has existed for more than a few seconds anyway), why would you believe that it would continue to be so? Do some people just want there to be…

Again, it's arrogant to believe we even COULD describe the world around us. And, frankly, math doesn't. It's too neat and the world is too messy. It's far too abstract and inexact to describe the world, but it's an elegant closed system that I admire and love.

I am not arrogant enough to believe any questions I could ask would even have questions, nor do I believe it is necessarily right to seek those answers (or ask questions). That statement is just loaded with hubris

Well, my thoughts are thoughtful. I'm not sure this discussion is, since you seem to be taking this personally. Ryan, however, did engage in a thoughtful discussion with me, for what it's worth.

Ok, again, you are presuming that knowledge is something that can be pursue and, ultimately, obtained. To be blunt: why do you believe that? My point in using your glasses example was that it is fundamentally flawed. Forget, for a moment, anyone's breadth or depth of knowledge or expertise (which again, presupposes…

It sounds like we are both in that boat, then. I don't blame you for wanting to stroke your ego a bit, so I'm not offended or anything. If you had resorted to insults or something, I would have been forced to interpret that as you being stubborn and inflexible in your beliefs, unwilling to consider a cogent opinion…

awesome

Indeed! Thanks again for being civil and intelligent in this discussion!

well, that seems like a big assumption to me (but, interestingly, not to most people)

also: what is a superhero of BMX? like a bike racing comic book or something? Sounds cool

Look, I am sorry that you seem unable to have an intellectual conversation about this. Perhaps you are chuffed because I am questioning a fundamental tenant of your belief system. I can see where that would be irksome. But I would posit that your unwillingness to accede to my points is quite similar to, say, a…

If existence was a geometry proof, where a higher authority was able to provide us with the "given" (Angle A is 90 degrees; There are fundamental, immutable laws to the universe that you can figure out), then I could see a major difference for sure

Thanks for engaging me in a thoughtful discussion. And yes, that is a good way to put it. Both science and religion posit that there IS something, and that it is an alternative to nothing. That's a good place to start with demonstrating their similarities