Funyn analogy opcode, on scientific grounds I'm sure it is as absurd as that. By moral logic it makes sense. Again, your defining knowledge as bound by science. As I said before our mind has a limit, and there are concepts that we cannot comprehend. So then, searching for truth by scientific means can never truly succeed, because science cannot break into the bounds of what is impossible for our minds to comprehend (ie non existsence).
But here you break into speculation. We cannot observe what is beyond the universe if such a term even makes any sense(by what we currently know, it does not). Yes, this is very much the realm of philosophy, but being as we cannot observe it, it cannot factor in to our oberservations of what we CAN observe, ie our natural universe. This is why science cannot include the supernatural. We have to work with what we know. Not include guesses and assumptions based on what we want to be true.
Which is where philosophy comes in. Is that so hard to accept? I'm not rejecting science, but I'm not accepting it's theories as fact either, and big bag/TOE are still theories and not 100% money in the bank facts.
But you are rejecting, and apparenly part of the problem is a common misunderstanding of fact and theory and just how exact science claims to be.
A theory NEVER becomes a fact. A theory is a conclusion drawn from evidence that explains facts. A theory is the highest level of scientific ideas. The theory of evolution has more evidence, and is better understood and fits the universe better than the theory of gravity.
Well to your next reply, science hasn't shown the TOE to be real beyond doubt. It isn't watertight, as shown by the land-sea transition. You have an assumption of how that happened, but any move from breathing in land-sea doesn't fit with the TOE principle of mutation.
And it never will. This is not a court of law. Science is never 100%. Science must always leave room for additional evidence. Science can only posit theories that are the best explanation for the facts at hand. Additional evidence may cause the theory to change, or even be tossed aside. See the transition from Newtonian Gravity to Relativity for an example.
As to the transtion from water to land, no it is not an assumption. As I sated, this is not an area I am knoweldegable enough in to explain. This is why I posted a refernce to start with, which you apparently didn't bother to even look at. Please learn about the evidence for how fish became amphibhians before rejecting it.
The philosophy has it's moral principles, and a billion years of suffering cannot fit with it, and since it is not an undisputable fact, it doesn't have to included in a philosophy for that philosophy to have merit.
Philosophy does not have its moral pricibles. Some philosophies posit moral ideals, but not all philosophies. Morality, or more specifically ethics, is itself a subset of philosophy.
For a philosophy to have merit, it must take into account all that is known of the universe. If you throw out evidence just becasue you do not like it, your philosphy no longer fits with what we do know. Thus it fails as a workable philosophy.
You continue to try to ignore reality, and substitude your ideal world in its place, and then claim any philosophy based in this other place should work and fit in the real world.
This will not work, except internally for yourself.