Is science the fundamental source of knowledge?

[Laberia]

This is the point, I think, where you realize that you are talking a completely different language.

Listen, i find interesting the words of an Pope(unfortunately i don`t remember who was) who roughly said:
Always will be the doubt for an atheist, and if the God really exist? And always will be the doubt for an beliver, but the God really exist?
There is only one way to prove everything, Scientific Method based in experiment. If i don`t see with my eyes, i don`t belive nothing.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I didn't say that I digested that sandwich. I said I ate it.

You ate it because you knew you could digest it. You didn't try eating marbles.

[Laberia]

"This song is nice", it is true for me, but can be either true or false for someone else.

And there is nothing scientific about it. Although it is the truth, it is not a scientific fact.

If a song is nice for you and not for me, this is a perception. The reason why we have two different perception can be explained by science.

[Herr Abubu]

Listen, i find interesting the words of an Pope(unfortunately i don`t remember who was) who roughly said:
Always will be the doubt for an atheist, and if the God really exist? And always will be the doubt for an beliver, but the God really exist?
There is only one way to prove everything, Scientific Method based in experiment. If i don`t see with my eyes, i don`t belive nothing.

How do you know this? Did someone prove science using science?

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

It's unbelievable how much of an amateur you are, really. Too stupid to even understand other people's arguments and views and why your own are flawed. If science can't prove itself, it means it's not the fundamental source of knowledge or truth.

I accept your surrender.

[Herr Abubu]

I accept your surrender.

"The only rational answer is to look at what has been the best method to acquire accurate information and to know what can lead to further accurate information once we progress further and unknown variables become known.

You are too darn stupid to realize that you have argued in length only to come out agreeing with my whole point. That's why you're a colossal idiot. This is a scientific fact, by Laviria's standards.

[Insuperable]

How do you know this? Did someone prove science using science?

They don't understand what you are trying to say. They think more in terms like "some theorized about this and someone discovered it so science can be proven with science".

[Ultra]

How do you know this? Did someone prove science using science?

Hmm, good, irrefutable point.

[Herr Abubu]

They don't understand what you are trying to say. They think more in terms like "some theorized about this and someone discovered it so science can be proven with science".

I'm here chuckling because of how ignorant they are.

The greatest problem in these sort of debates is that the language is completely different. When one part says one thing, the other, usually more ignorant part, interprets it a completely different way from what the other part intended it to mean, because they just don't know; they're too ignorant. A debate implies that both parts aren't ignorant of the subject.

[Laberia]

"The only rational answer is to look at what has been the best method to acquire accurate information and to know what can lead to further accurate information once we progress further and unknown variables become known.

You are too darn stupid to realize that you have argued in length only to come out agreeing with my whole point. That's why you're a colossal idiot. This is a scientific fact, by Laviria's standards.

The scientific fact in all our discussion is that you are bastard son of the whore.