Can we scientifically prove the past and future ?

The term science has been broadened to mean anything that is being studied . We need to clarify what science really means if we want to get past generalizations. The scientific method proves ideas with real time tests. Sometimes an idea may sound like it is plausible, but when tests are run, the anticipated results don't occur. A real scientist will try another idea until he finds something that consistently works. An idea remains a speculation when there is no way to observe it in action, therefore the past and future are confined to history and speculation and cannot be scientifically proved.

What is the difference between speculation and fiction? A speculator has convinced himself that his idea is so plausible it must be fact and that his inability to prove it doesn't matter. A fiction writer knows he isn't dealing in facts and has nothing to prove. A speculator will insert bits of facts and science into his broad unprovable assumption hoping to make it look credible and justify his faith. Much of what is being called science today is simple minded speculation based in ideals rather than method.

We can scientifically examine a bowl of Cheerios as an example. The milk will contain detectable amounts of cheerio material in it. If we were to drop something into the milk, we would observe that perfect rings are formed. Based on this evidence we could conclude that Cheerios formed themselves out of the milk. The observations are scientific but the conclusion is speculation.                                        

It is important to ask why.

What causes complacency? How does one's mind grow old? How can smart people become decieved? The answer is simple. They quit asking why. A questioning mind is a healthy mind. I'm not talking about turning everything into conspiracies or becoming cynical. We should always have honest questions based in respect and awe. Never quit questioning. Never take anyone's word as gospel.

This is the reason I post and comment on blogs. The internet has opened things up for dialog, giving access to both like and unlike minded people. We don't have to send a letter by horse to correspond like those in the past, but we can in real time make comments and verify our information with others. 

 It is much easier to just comment on current events. Evoking passion keeps even simple minded subjects interesting. It is entertaining to debate using generalizations about things even when we don't know the real details.Passion based debate rather than logic isn't profitable for our minds. Ever notice how practices that were bad under one administration aren't worthy of mention when the preferred guy or party is in office? That is why I like discussing subjects according to principles and reason. A bit less excitement, but it builds a long term foundation of examination rather than accepting things blindly.

Curiosity is synonymous with youth. And every question answered should open the door for many more. This doesn't mean you can never know anything as the cynical anti-knowledge people say. It means that the more you know the more possibilities there are. New questions open up new directions in the same way that traveling reveals more roads to take. Are you up to it?

What is freedom?

Secularists argue that Theists tend to appeal to authority rather than reason things out. They claim that godly people get a notion of something that God wants and they push it on everyone. This claim by secularists is valid in some circumstances and we all know a few meddlers. There are always those little tyrants in every religious association that make it their business to force others to obey what they perceive as God’s requirements. The poor souls who don’t share the same views end up being looked down upon due to a perceived air of superiority. After all, they know God far better than you can. But we always have the choice to disassociate.

Secularists, however, have their own tyrants. Since they believe morality consists of the things that are best for society, this notion becomes an appeal to authority and they end up manipulating people in a worse way. The words that every Despot has used throughout history to come to power is “the will of the people“. They claim to represent the needs of society and justify atrocities this way. After all, they know what society needs far better than you can. It is a worse kind of tyranny because need can be defined in unlimited ways causing them to make up infractions to justify oppressive acts toward those don’t share the same views or any who oppose them. We cannot disassociate ourselves from what our livelihood depends on so secular oppression is a much worse evil.

Freedom really means to be free from all meddlers. Free from the tyrants we all experience that appoint themselves as guardians to society and our lives. Individualists value freedom to make their own life choices. We believe in discussing options and views, but are very careful at giving enforcement authority. Those who come into authority seem to easily become autocrats who bribe society with perks to make themselves popular. As this is done, enough support is garnered to encroach further into our lives and finances, thus insuring their own wealth and causing a perpetual decline for everyone involved. We need both freedom of religion and freedom from giving others governing authority over all areas of our lives to remain a free society. We must be free in order to prosper.

Appeal to authority; To use authorities such as God, scientists or the polls as the winning point of an argument rather than discussing the merits of an issue. For example; “Polls say that people want free healthcare.” Does this mean it is affordable or a better product? There is no fact or argument on the issue in this statement but we are expected to accept free heathcare as a good idea because a supposed majority support it.

Despot; A person who uses limited authority to become a tyrant (or a jerk).
Autocrat; Someone who believes his authority cannot be disputed.