superstrings or supernuts

You're missing something.

You are missing the fact that in order to intellectually swim you need dump your religious life-belt.

If you're still trying to move from a biblical understanding of the world to a scientific understanding then string theory and quantum mechanics is probably not the best first step to take.

Start with something that's a little easier to get your hands around, like geology and plate tectonics and the distribution and evolution of biology. Then work back to planetary formation and stellar evolution (the life of stars, which produce all our heavier elements), and try to get a feel for the true age and elegance of the universe.

The stories in the bible originated over two thousand years ago in almost stone age cultures, and have been translated over time to with the intention of manipulating cultural awareness to serve a religious hierarchy of priests. It's designed to be simple and compelling and completely unaccountable to reality because its core foundation is Faith.

Science is an entirely different endeavor. The core foundation of science is an assumption that we are able to perceive reality and that empirical evidence tells us the story of nature.

I ve let go of that belt years ago, its more of the scientific logic string theorist try to write out>>but im still reading

im sorry let me put this in better explaining..... i dont belive the bible at all. I think the bible and religion is all bs...my point is only to say string theory is even harder to believe then that!!

Again, im am not trying to go from bible to string theory. I believe the bible and organized religion is all bs. Just that string theory is even harder to believe. I have understand bits of geology and have a great understanding of the infinite age of our universe.
I understand a bit of the death of stars and where most of our elements come from, I get supernovas and blackholes......just not string theory!!

I think what you mean then is that String Theory is harder to understand, not to believe. It may also be that you simply disagree with String Theory even if you understand it.

String Theory is far from being proven science. Many scientists actually claim it can't be treated as science because it's untestable. Others claim that it is science because it makes predictions and if enough of those predictions turn out to be accurate then it can be tested through a preponderance of evidence. It's a debatable difference.

It's ok to say that you don't understand String Theory, or that you don't agree with it, but to compare it to the bible as a possible belief system, is to misunderstand either the Bible or Science or both.

Science is certainly a belief system. Its only faith that i have that these "scientist" are certainly on point with what they study and publish. I dont have a hubble telescope, or a hydrogen collider so i put my faith in them. Others put faith in doctors while others use nature, all forms of science behind both and yet both cant be perfect.

You are failing to distinguish between blind faith and informed faith. It is possible to check the work of scientists, and other scientists do it all the time. The Michelson-Morley experiment is the classic example of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method.

I came, literally, within inches of being killed early one morning on the streets of Columbus, Ohio, when a maniac ran a red light at an excessive rate of speed, and i was only saved by an instinctive reaction in which i jerked the steering wheel to the left. In seeming slow motion, i watched the roof of this homocidal idiot's car pass by the passenger window of my van.

Nevertheless, i don't stop at green lights, on the off chance that some such maniac may suddenly appear again. I have a reasonable faith based on experience that the cross traffic with the red light will stop. Religious faith, however, is blind faith. It is accepting not just a single belief, but an entire belief set without a shred of evidence. To compare the faith that educated laymen have in the scientific community to the blind faith of religious adherence is surely a glaring example not simply of ignorance, but a lack of a sense of proportion.

there is a certain amount of blind faith in virtually everything, including science. we have to only agree with scientific knowlege, without any experimenting ourselves. I cant see anything more then my eyes can or have seen. I for one cant believe in racial sterotypes, exsistence of certain other countries, or even crimes such as murder or rape, Because I have never seen any of them. Its blind faith that these things exsist, just like the stories in the book called the bible and the book called elegant universe. Its the same man

I'm begining to see your point, smc. We all accept certain scientific "truths" because they have been arrived at through observation, experimentation and the use of valid reasoning techniques. We haven't done any of this work ourselves but we have absolutely no reason to doubt the validity of the conclusions that scientists have arrived at. This is in stark contrast to any blind faith in the half-hysterical writings of some sheep- and goat-herding people of more than 2,000 years ago. There is no reasonable basis for accepting the Bible at face value.

So far, so good. But then you come to something like 'string theory' or 'chaos theory', which presents some quite interesting, if startling, speculation. And, in spite of any 'thought experimets' ,so-called, which have been performed, the whole thing smacks of the same kind of blind groping in the dark that was performed by the likes of Elijah and his ilk. The language is necessarily different, the authority called upon is not some abstract diety but, rather, reliance on an equally abstract phenomenon called 'reason.'

Am I reading you correctly, Mac?

That's why they are called scientific THEORIES.

String theory, for instance, makes sense to me, as much as I am able to understand it. But, if it could be tested and found wrong, I'd have no problem with that.

String theory explains (in my mind) some supernatural things. For instance the theory there could be another world, or worlds, just adjacent to where we are, a miniscule shift away.

What some people call spirits, ghosts, the afterlife, even a godhead....perhaps they are just part of one of those other worlds.

That's just a theory of mine.

The philosophical basis for science is called Naturalism, Methodological Naturalism to be specific. At a philosophical level, everything necessarily starts with a belief. This is why science can not prove things in an absolute sense.

yes>>read it loud and clear. I go even further to offer the idea of being skeptical and uncertain about EVERYTHING including science and life. I went on to say i cant even be sure about murder existing any further then movies and media...for i have never seen it...i ask, do people have it in them to murder? or do we think people do because of the false reality set forth by media. This can be said about everything one individual has never seen first hand. Even a story told from a friend is still just that, nothing you can hold as true.
This discussion leads me an idea that "life" is way more simple once you excuse anything that could potentially be false as oppose to holding the idea that it is potentially true. We would all be better to suppose the evil in the would might not exist

sorry for the tangent

No, you failed entirely to see the distinction. Blind faith operates from no evidence, and without caring if there were any evidence. There is plenty of evidence for your idiotic laundry list. If you wish to portray yourself as a slack-jawed idiot, that's fine. But it doesn't serve as a justification for claiming that relying upon the integrity of scientists and naturalistic methodology is the equivalent of the haunted superstition of religion.

Philosophically speaking, nothing can be known for certain, each of us might be dreaming everything around us. But realistically, extremely few people live their lives that way. For the most part people behave Naturalistically. Every morning they pour their corn flakes into a bowl and eat them without checking to make sure they haven't magically transformed into poison flakes over night.

And human beings, being more thoughtful than insects, also relate to the world with an awareness that exceeds simply what they can see and hear and touch. Our behavior automatically causes us to use deduction to expand our awareness into areas we haven't had direct experience with. This behavior can definitely lead to errors, especially when you trust the wrong sources of information, but it also results in a much more comprehensive world experience.

If you choose to limit what you believe to only what you can see and hear and touch directly, then you are choosing the way of the insect. But you are also being arbitrary in selecting a limit which is beyond the philosophical absolute of realizing that you don't know anything for sure. The only two logical choices are to treat reality as a complete unknown and not believe anything, even your senses, or to completely accept the full range of human abilities and interact with reality with full capacity and confidence.

If you're going to choose an arbitrary limit to how much you trust your ability to understand the world through deduction and reason, then why choose to limit yourself to the world of the insect or the world of the crow. You might as well go all the way and choose to be human and to assume that you do have the ability to perceive reality accurately.

got it but..the reality created by sources such as movies for the masses and news sources are precisely those we shouldn't trust for the info we are receiving.
I will reiterate the point that the reality in which,say murder, doesn't exist is much more appealing then the former.
It seems as even in your two options, insect or human, insects are better off. We humans are stuffed with an entire falsified reality and the insect has and knows it all.
I believe more so the only source to be trusted for truth is oneself. For a simple game of whisper down the lane with some people becomes a false reality. Much different from the eye of the observer. And this umbrellas the entire spectrum of reality.
I don't believe I'm limiting my beliefs, they are just different set. U may believe to except most of what u hear through stories where i believe not to.
The true difference between humans and insects would be the ability to question or be skeptical about everything. Or simply disregard anything we haven't experienced for ourselves.
Its our elaborate verbal and media communications that causes all of this false reality. Its actually a bit disturbing to think too deep in to

Im simply saying i have yet to conduct any of these experiments that prove any science . Im merely taking the word of another untrustworthy human and naively agreeing with a unsure nod of agreement. That is blind faith. I have no concrete evidence of stars being burning gases or lightening being a wave, I blindly follow scientists, while others blindly follow a priest. its all blind my friend

It's important to understand that science is based on an assumption of naturalism which is definitely a belief. All of human behavior revolves around a basic belief that the world around us is real and that we have some ability to perceive it accurately and that it impacts us. Otherwise we would all behave as though life were a dream and food and oxygen were not necessary and we would all just stare at a wall until we starved to death. A vast majority of humanity (those that we don't consider to be insane) behave in a very naturalistic way and nobody thinks it's odd or surprising.
You shouldn't be "blindly" following science or scientists, you should be attempting to understand what they are saying and making sure that it makes sense based on the evidence and arguments they are presenting. And if you can't or don't understand something extremely complex, then you should be assessing the probable validity of the sources you are listening to, and making sure that their behavior and thought process is something which is consistent with a naturalistic view (a view which all of us instinctively default to, and many of us intentionally choose).

Priests and scientists are completely different in the level of belief they require you to accept. Science only requires that you believe naturalism and everything else progresses empirically from there. You can trace every good scientific theory back through the sequence, including a ton of peer review to help weed out errors. Priests on the other hand (in some religions) ask you to not only believe them without any evidence, but they often ask you to believe things which are completely contrary to our direct daily experience and understanding of the natural world. Priests ask for blind faith, it allows them to tell you what to think. Science asks you to believe in what your senses tell you and to be skeptical and to think for yourself. Those are VERY different world views.