werd

 

Mr. Magic.

I'll bite.

The first is Mr. Billions and Billions establishing a starting point for those to journey with him. Getting everyone "on the same page" in order for him to explain, and not get inane questions throughout his lecture (his experiences taught him this) from those that didn't know where point "A" was.
It is a teaching device. If I must pigeonhole it, obviously it must be more science as it is determined by reason and testing.

The second example of text you offer is story telling also. However, instead of a starting point for the purpose of educating, it states a fable as fact. Much like "Once upon a time". It is also a device, and tested for sure. But certainly not science. Nor can I say it is religion.

But back to the first example. And your thoughts of being delusional as well. If the beginning of your analysis is based in myth/faith/whatever, then your "point A" is going to be different from that of one who starts w/o such baggage. What I am saying is that knowlege is added to a believer, but the foundation remains an emotional need for belief. And then we get Monkey trials and textbook banning.

Just a quick one from Groucho ok? "Either he's dead or my watch has stopped."

Again, the point seems to be who believes in death after life and not the other way 'round. Most everyone does for most everything....except for themselves and those like them that know the right things to know. The foundation again.

 

What "reason" leads to the conclusion that "the universe is all there is and all there ever will be"?

And how can anyone possibly test that thesis?

 

The use of that as an opening sentence for the reasons I've explained are the "reason" which eludes you apparently. Sir, you try my patience. What do you think Groucho says to that?

 

You gave a reason for making the statement, not a reason for the validity of the statement.

What exactly do you mean when you say that the statement was "determined by reason and testing"? (Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that to "determine" something is to establish its validity, not merely to blurt it out.

 

How do we (you) know that it's a fable?

 

He says: "Don't mind if I do. You must try mine sometime."

Furthermore, I've already stated the answers to the questions. Except for the fable one. That really isn't a question.

To wit:
a : a legendary story of supernatural happenings b : a narration intended to enforce a useful truth;

Fable it is. You might take issue, but it is a fable nonetheless.

 

You haven't answered the question about what reason - what science - supports the conclusion that the universe is all that there is and all that there ever will be.

As for the second question, let me rephrase it so that you don't feel the need to digress into tangential non sequiturs:

How do we (you) know that it's not fact?

 

What gets me, is that scientists continually prove and disprove various theories over and over again. Over time we know more and understand more. We become more intelligent and more knowledgable. To think that everything that we will ever need to know was written thousands of years ago without room for question is (IMO) mind boggilingly rediculous and insulting to the human species.

Plenty of information here:

Universe questions

 

Magic,

I told you it was a tried and true teaching device to get everyone on the same page. A starting point. YOU decided that it was somehow the conclusion of his life's work.

The burden of proof is not mine re:the fable. You already know this. And the A.G. thinks Calico cats are the devil. Why do I bother?

Good Afternoon Sir.