First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural with the scientific methodology used to determine any phenomena…….but instead treat the supernatural as non existent, and thus do not investigate this subject correctly.
It is as if they do not want to discover something, that will eventually put an end to their fabrications and speculations about the origins of the universe, the origins of the species, the understanding of what constitutes life, the after life, God, purpose and so on.
This is cheating….why does science cheat like this?
They cheat like this because they are holding to the false belief that they are the keepers of truth.
How could they be considered truthful, if they treat the supernatural with contempt and do not conduct scientific research with the correct methodology given to the likes of other subjects.
It is known that with any research of any phenomena, biased approach is discarded and honest appraisal is conducted, until it is completely exhausted……and with the supernatural this is not embraced.
The only way for science to establish the reality of the supernatural, is if science embrace the teachings of Vedanta and investigate through the process that is presented…..but main stream science will not do this for they are untruthful and deceitful in their ways.
What little investigation has been done with the super natural is insufficient, and its entire approach has been conducted with an already established false conclusion held in mind.
Atheistic science does not want to find evidence of the super natural, or the likes thereof.
Science even present that there is no intelligence behind intelligent phenomena, and this is clearly absurd and untruthful.
Science presents….. that where everyone can clearly observe design, that there is no design.
Science have no clue how we have a complex cosmos, and they come into the dilemma half way and proudly explain how the species have come about by inventing magical words like……natural selection,
speciation, genetic drift, survival of the fittest and so on.
Other branches of science have told us that this complex and finely balanced creation has come about by an explosion of something……………..and this something they cannot explain without further fabrication.
Science cannot even create in the labs a tiny ant, but they continue to inform us that life is just chemicals and their reactions,……….but if this is the case and science has all the necessary chemicals at hand, then why are they unable to create this ant.
Nature without laboratories or electricity of conscious science people, can easily create every day trillions of new life forms through the process of sexual intercourse, and this really just means that the male gives the female some of its chemicals and then we have a new life within no-time.
Science could easily create these chemicals and then mix them up and create an ant, but they will not do it…..or is it that they cannot do it, and they cannot do it because life is not merely chemicals and their reactions, but there is another aspect to life that they do not recognize and that is the supernatural particle which is the spiritual soul.
They cannot do it because the life within the ant is supernatural, and firstly they reject this supernatural aspect of life…..and secondly they cannot create the supernatural particle, so without creating the supernatural particle they will never create life….ever, ever ever, but they give us a blank cheque and tell us that in the future they will create life, because they do not want to loose their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
Originally posted by DasaLet's not generalize too much here...I doubt most scientists believe they are the "keepers of truth"
First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural ...[text shortened]... se their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
Originally posted by DasaAs usual, you show extreme hatred for anyone that disagrees with your religious views by totally misrepresenting their position and also that of science and anyone who accepts scientific method as valid.
First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural ...[text shortened]... se their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
Also, as usual, you make a large number of assertions without stating any argument or premise to back them up.
Originally posted by DasaWhich branches of science are concerned with the 'creator', 'death' and 'meaning'?
First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural ...[text shortened]... se their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by DasaI think the following applies to Dasa's theistic science:
First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural ...[text shortened]... se their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
"This is, in Plantinga's own words, a "science stopper", because once one stops looking for a natural explanation of a phenomenon, one is assured of never finding it."
(The Notre Dame theologian Alvin Plantinga,)
http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/science-religion-christian-scholarship-theistic-science
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy is it, that when I simply state the obvious....that you translate that to say I hate.
As usual, you show extreme hatred for anyone that disagrees with your religious views by totally misrepresenting their position and also that of science and anyone who accepts scientific method as valid.
Also, as usual, you make a large number of assertions without stating any argument or premise to back them up.
Your false assumption .....is a declaration of your untruthful nature.
I hate no one because my spiritual perception allows me to see clearly the reality of life.....and the inter-connectedness of all beings....so it is impossible for me to hate anything.
You should apologize for your false accusation.
Originally posted by JS357You can look all you want to find a natural explanation of the supernatural.....and you will never find it.
I think the following applies to Dasa's theistic science:
"This is, in Plantinga's own words, a "science stopper", because once one stops looking for a natural explanation of a phenomenon, one is assured of never finding it."
(The Notre Dame theologian Alvin Plantinga,)
http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/science-religion-christian-scholarship-theistic-science
Although truthful persons can simply look at the world around them, and can see the hand of God in all things.
Material apparatus cannot detect the spiritual.
The material mind and intelligence must be purified to the transcendental platform, and then the spiritual can be perceived and then understood.
Atheists want to understand God with their polluted mind.....they have no chance.
Get rid of the pollution and then God may be perceived.
Originally posted by DasaSo science unfairly neglects any investigation of the supernatural etc...
First of all when I talk of science, I am always referring to that part of science that attempts to answer the questions of life, such as …..origins, consciousness, life, death, cause, creator, meaning and so on.…..and I am never referring to technology science.
It strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural ...[text shortened]... se their title as keepers of the truth. (they cheat the people with falsity)
More to come....
Ok, how exactly does one conduct any reasonable inquiry into the nature of inaccessible dimensions, twinkle dust, and magic etc...?
How does one quantify it?
How does one measure it?
How does one perform tests on it?
How does one build hypotheses about it that can, potentially, be empirically verified or falsified?
How can one apply the scientific method even in some trivial way!???
Originally posted by JS357Not to defend Dasa's 'theistic science', whatever that means, but, how can a "phenomenon" be explained by natural means?
I think the following applies to Dasa's theistic science:
"This is, in Plantinga's own words, a "science stopper", because once one stops looking for a natural explanation of a phenomenon, one is assured of never finding it."
(The Notre Dame theologian Alvin Plantinga,)
http://ncse.com/rncse/18/2/science-religion-christian-scholarship-theistic-science
If by phenomenon one means an event which cannot be explained by natural means, then how can science hope to discover the cause?
On the other hand, if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it.
For example: We know the universe exists. But science cannot explain by natural means what caused the universe to exist. If one were to say that the universe has always existed, then science should be able to explain how that is so.
Science, as we know it, is a creation of man. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell. Will science really ever be able to explain by natural means whether the universe was created, always existed, or neither? Maybe.
But it hasn't happened yet.
Originally posted by josephwOn the other hand, if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it.
Not to defend Dasa's 'theistic science', whatever that means, but, how can a "phenomenon" be explained by natural means?
If by phenomenon one means an event which cannot be explained by natural means, then how can science hope to discover the cause?
On the other hand, if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it.
...[text shortened]... e universe was created, always existed, or neither? Maybe.
But it hasn't happened yet.
No it shouldn't! It may be a goal, but that does not mean it is an attainable goal...some questions may well be unanswerable, or can only be partially answered. The reason for that, preempting your gut response, is that we may lack the cognitive toolset, or computational power/technology, or even resources to answer certain complex questions, or merely lack the physical ability to conduct a deep search into the mechanism of the universe on some levels. God need have nothing to do with human 'shortcomings' in their scientific endeavours. Or in other words, for gaps in human knowledge, it is not necessary one invokes a god.
Originally posted by Agerg".., is that we may lack the cognitive toolset, or computational power/technology, or even resources to answer certain complex questions, or merely lack the physical ability to conduct a deep search into the mechanism of the universe on some levels."
[b]On the other hand, if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it.
No it shouldn't! It may be a goal, but that does not mean it is an attainable goal...some questions may well be unanswerable, or can only be partially answered. The reason for that, preempting your gut response, is that we may lack the cognitive toolset ...[text shortened]... vours. Or in other words, for gaps in human knowledge, it is not necessary one invokes a god.[/b]
Or maybe we lack the faith.
God is obviously not a part of your thinking. Pity. Knowing that God is the creator of all that exists would add depth to your otherwise purely material mindset.
For example: You know how to love don't you? If you knew that God created you with the capacity to love, wouldn't that give deeper meaning to your love?
Originally posted by josephwGod is obviously not a part of your thinking. Pity. Knowing that God is the creator of all that exists would add depth to your otherwise purely material mindset.
[b]".., is that we may lack the cognitive toolset, or computational power/technology, or even resources to answer certain complex questions, or merely lack the physical ability to conduct a deep search into the mechanism of the universe on some levels."
Or maybe we lack the faith.
God is obviously not a part of your thinking. Pity. Knowing that G t God created you with the capacity to love, wouldn't that give deeper meaning to your love?[/b]
That remains to be shown; indeed it could, in a hypothetical sense, perhaps strip away some depths to my mindset by suppressing my curiousity, and denying me the ability to think further than goddidit (in that, hypothetically, I might in order to admit such a worldview change so catastrophically that I see it as some sort of blasphemy to challenge the notion god didn't do it). - Indeed it would take some radical change to my mindset in order for me to accept as plausible even 'some' god exists (not necessarily the god you believe in - i.e. different properties), and I'm not so sure I would regard, now, such a change a good thing.
For example: You know how to love don't you? If you knew that God created you with the capacity to love, wouldn't that give deeper meaning to your love?
I don't see why it should, moreover I lack such insight, having never seriously believed in gods, to answer your question with a strict yes or no.
Originally posted by AgergWhy do you believe that believing in a creator would suppress your curiosity?
[b]God is obviously not a part of your thinking. Pity. Knowing that God is the creator of all that exists would add depth to your otherwise purely material mindset.
That remains to be shown; indeed it could, in a hypothetical sense, perhaps strip away some depths to my mindset by suppressing my curiousity, and denying me the ability to think further than ...[text shortened]... having never seriously believed in gods, to answer your question with a strict yes or no.[/b]
Personally, I think of mans science as trivial compared to all the knowledge God must possess in order to create so much wonder.
Man is a mere piece of dust.
Originally posted by josephwWhy do you believe that believing in a creator would suppress your curiosity?
Why do you believe that believing in a creator would suppress your curiosity?
Personally, I think of mans science as trivial compared to all the knowledge God must possess in order to create so much wonder.
Man is a mere piece of dust.
You might have seen this edit:
...(in that, hypothetically, I might in order to admit such a worldview change so catastrophically that I see it as some sort of blasphemy to challenge the notion god didn't do it)....
Personally, I think of mans science as trivial compared to all the knowledge God must possess in order to create so much wonder.
Our opinions differ. Indeed on a philosophical level, I need suppose nothing more about some supposed creator of our universe, than it has the capability of creating universes, somehow. I need not suppose it doesn't require something else in order to do this, I need not suppose boundless, or indeed *any* knowledge, I need not suppose it is potent beyond the ability to create universes (however such may be acheived, either by accident, or otherwise), I need not suppose it is benevolent, and so on...
Man is a mere piece of dust.
I disagree.
Originally posted by DasaIt strikes me as mind numbing, when science does not even approach the subject of supernatural with the scientific methodology used to determine any phenomena…….but instead treat the supernatural as non existent, and thus do not investigate this subject correctly.*
You can look all you want to find a natural explanation of the supernatural.....and you will never find it.
Although truthful persons can simply look at the world around them, and can see the hand of God in all things.
Material apparatus cannot detect the spiritual.
The material mind and intelligence must be purified to the transcendental platform, and ...[text shortened]... olluted mind.....they have no chance.
Get rid of the pollution and then God may be perceived.
I. Please describe (1) the scientific method, and (2) how it can be applied to whatever is not of the natural order (i.e., the supernatural); please further describe (3) the difference between science and philosophy (and religion) as disciplines.
You can look all you want to find a natural explanation of the supernatural.....and you will never find it.
II. How exactly, then, would you have science “approach the subject of supernatural with the scientific methodology”? Please be as precise as possible.
III. If there is a straightforward logical proof of “god”—as you understand that term—then please present it . If you are unable to construct such a logical proof, then why should anyone think that it is not your own mental pollution that conjures your particular notion(s) of the supernatural? (I am not saying that it is; I am only suggesting that logic is a good proof against charges of "mental pollution".)
By straightforward, I mean only that the premise (a) “a coherent natural order”, conjoined with the premise (b) “no supernatural category” (“god” ) ought to result in a demonstrable logical contradiction. If there are additional premises needed (e.g., that are recognized by Vedanta), then please feel free to present them.
________________________________
* Sorry, somehow I dropped this quote from my first version...