@rb
eh, did I give off the impression that I don't respect science? I'm not sure why I have to
respect a research method, or the people working by the use of it. i can do the same, and to a degree, i could do their work i were allotted the same experiences as they. aren't we all together in this whatever journey we're in? i don't need to elevate their status, they are equals to me. we all
are
science, or in this case, analysis, can disambiguate unclear aspects of international relations, but the organ that determines the laws are a group of people. science does not choose, in the end. it is a person or a collective will/spirit/vision. the cases that are brought up in the supreme court in the US are good examples. im sure there are cases in your own countries in the higher courts, were it is not science that makes the final call, but the decision of the top authorities of law. it is they who shape and relate them, working with their own interpretations
of course the best countries are secular. the question is, what allowed secularism come into being? the core drive that drove civilization needs not to be forgotten, although the skin and callusous of the old traditions and their interpretive notions must be peeled away. secular countries tend to have a religious basing. even in your country of australia there's a sizable christian community. same with britian, or germany, or the US or south korea or turkey.
if you want to differentiate the ' survival of the fittest ' with the ' process of evolution ', that's fine, although it sort of misses the point
@blar
? the heisenberg principle is a good one. you can't locate where a photon is, because just by reflecting light on it to exact its location, you allocate the electron. or was it proton? anyway yeah. the point im trying to make is that there's no way to prove that the world is entirely deterministic, because finding out would be a paradox. if you want to take that further you're going to have to dabble in parallel worlds and alternate dimensions, which, honestly, is a waste of time for the current zeitgeist (imo)
hmm, God existing isn't really something that has to be argued either. in that ontological system, God merely exists, it doesn't need an argument for its proof.
Do you claim that there is something separate from a physical reality that forms a cosmic system? If so, if such a thing has no impact on the physical reality then it's irrelevant to its functioning and if it has, then it has to be proven or verified. Calling it dark matter or quantum won't work.
well personally no. but it depends on what you mean by physical reality, at least for me. if you're talking about the materials, yes they exist, but it's not the only thing that 'exists' (some philosopher guy uses the word "subists" for this though). in that system is God, but God then also transcends the entire system- (well at least in their ontological worldview) God is who He is.
"I AM WHO I AM"
@lazuli
oh that link was more about me showing how we choose to research pointless crap when there's other venues which we could be focusing our efforts on