I apologize if Im harping. I thought of it again because Jeremy posted Chlorophyll. I always cite Sam. See it there?

Genesis 1

1:11-1:13

Its one though not the "recap"

got it thnx K -

My take on it is thus . . . why make the universe more complex then it already is?

That is why I am not a theist. I really don't see myself as an atheist in a strict definition. I am most certainly agnostic.

I am willing to take in any new data and try to interpret it using every skill available.

I do not see Faith as a skill. In fact I see faith as a hindrance to developing skills that are valuable at interpreting data.

Doubt is more important then faith.

True... Faith is not fact.

Not religious, but...

Seeking to prove something true rather than first doubting and seeking to prove false is an approach that seems to move the "energy" more readily and lead to discovery of actual evidence.

Right. I have actually no problem at all with the concept of creator of some kind. I just dont see it as the god depicted in the bible for several reasons however I would never presume to close myself off to that idea entirely. There is a certain level of comfort in it, lets just be honest. As humans, we tend to crave that on some subconscious level no matter how scientifically minded or analytical our own personal approaches may be. But I agree absolutely that "faith" in fact can create a barrier to actual exploration and discovery.

Since we live in a holographic reality, anything is possible.

I used to have one of those hologram eyeballs. It hung from a chain in my dorm room and then it magically left this dimension on its own. Either that or someone walked off with it.

Doubt . . . . . Affirmation . . . . call it whatever you want, the negative connotation is entirely man made. You can be skeptical without being negative.

I am sure a computer running a consistency check does not see that check as negative.

A scientist uses Doubt to try to prove his hypothesis, but a good scientist doubts even his own observations, and with this doubt he runs a consistency check on all data acquired.

The process is always about removing doubt, but you must have doubt to remove any . . .

It's completely human to have doubt. We're born to have doubt and to learn by comparison.

Perhaps first focusing on and seeking which elements are true, rather than first pinpointing which are false is simply a matter shifting perspective.

Just ideas about how we ALL approach learning.

Your ascribing a motive to a process. I am trying to say that the motive is not important in understanding my point.

I agree with you, and your point is that motive is important, but we are talking about different aspects of the same process.

I agree that we are talking about different aspects of the same process.

In the context that doubt can lead to discernment and ultimately to discovery, I believe it to be an absolute crucial element.

Sometimes, when I jump in to add to what someone else has shared, it's taken as intended to take away from what the other has said or prove the other wrong.

Quite the contrary in this case...

I should have known

You have always done just that