Those big bad cheating science people. (more basics)

Originally posted by Agerg
[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 vours. Or in other words, for gaps in human knowledge, it is not necessary one invokes a god.[/b]

If you don't mind I like to go back a few posts to this one.

I said. "...if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it".

You said, "No it shouldn't".

Okay, so we disagree. But then you said, "Or in other words, for gaps in human knowledge, it is not necessary one invokes a god."

I don't don't understand where you get the notion that God is invoked as a stopgap for the gaps in human knowledge. That would be ignorant. And I think it's ignorants on your part to assume that that is the case.

Believing that God created the universe has nothing to do with gaps in human knowledge. It is ignorant to believe that those who believe in a creator do so because of gaps in their knowledge. The assertion that it is due to gaps in knowledge that people believe in a creator is born of ignorants.

It's like me saying to you that the reason why you have gaps in your knowledge is because you don't believe in a creator.

Originally posted by vistesd
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.

[b]You can look all you want to find a natural explanation of the supernatural.....and you will never find i ...[text shortened]... l premises needed (e.g., that are recognized by Vedanta), then please feel free to present them.

Man are you barking up the wrong tree! 😉

Originally posted by Dasa
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.

"You can look all you want to find a natural explanation of the supernatural.....and you will never find it."

--The natural cannot see the supernatural.

"Although truthful persons can simply look at the world around them, and can see the hand of God in all things."

--So long are truthful about what they see, and not just thinking they are so.

"Material apparatus cannot detect the spiritual."

--It does not try.

"The material mind and intelligence must be purified to the transcendental platform, and then the spiritual can be perceived and then understood."

-- The mind is the primary function of the brain, as the delivery of oxygen is the primary function of the heart.

"Atheists want to understand God with their polluted mind.....they have no chance."

--Perhaps some atheists yearn to believe, not all do or not all know this.

"Get rid of the pollution and then God may be perceived."

--Whence the pollution?

Originally posted by josephw
If you don't mind I like to go back a few posts to this one.

I said. "...[b]if all phenomenon has a natural cause, then science should be able to explain it".

You said, "No it shouldn't".

Okay, so we disagree. But the you said, "Or in other words, for gaps in human knowledge, it is not necessary one invokes a god."

I don't don't understand wh ason why you have gaps in your knowledge is because you don't believe in a creator.[/b]

There is no such ignorance on my part, merely observation. Indeed way back in antiquity when man didn't know why water fell from the sky, a bright light (that hurts their eyes should they look at it) sometimes ascends into the sky when it's daytime, and sometimes a grey ball of light ascends into the sky at night time, why plagues struck people down, and anything else they didn't understand, they attributed it to God. Moreover, any brave person willing to baulk the religious concensus ran the risk of being killed for blasphemy. Even in modern times, given that humans cannot definitively say that life arose on this planet due to abiogenesis, many of your peers (and I suspect you also), insert God.

Many of your peers hold the view that large scale natural disasters are an act of their God, or that fluky rescues are an act of God, or that our consciousness has a bridge to god somehow through the so called 'soul', etcetra etcetra...

My position is not one of ignorance.


Furthermore, I have gaps in my knowledge not least because my brain lacks the capacity to warehouse such knowledge so to have no gaps in it, even if such was potentially possible! some god plays no part in this.

Originally posted by Agerg
There is no such ignorance on my part, merely observation. Indeed way back in antiquity when man didn't know why water fell from the sky, a bright light (that hurts their eyes should they look at it) sometimes ascends into the sky when it's daytime, and sometimes a grey ball of light ascends into the sky at night time, why plagues struck people down, and anyth have no gaps in it, even if such was potentially possible! some god plays no part in this.

Do you believe every fairytale you're told?

Who in the hell do you think came up with that garbage? It certainly wasn't a believer.

You've been sold down the river and you don't even know it Agerg.

Observation? Don't be senile. You weren't even around when God created the universe.

Thanks for the laugh. Hilarious.

Originally posted by josephw
Man are you barking up the wrong tree! 😉

Hello old man! 😉 Hope you and yours are well, Joe.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you believe every fairytale you're told?

Who in the hell do you think came up with that garbage? It certainly wasn't a believer.

You've been sold down the river and you don't even know it Agerg.

Observation? Don't be senile. You weren't even around when God created the universe.

Thanks for the laugh. Hilarious.

eh???

God has been filling gaps in theist knowledge since the idea of God was invented. Indeed your substitution of God for the cause of our universe to exist bears out my point - i.e. we don't know what 'started' the universe - ergo goddidit!
I believe in no fairy-tales.

I didn't assert or even imply I observed the creation of the universe, I observe the arguments made by yourself and your peers (both present and long since dead). I perhaps didn't make myself clear on that point.

Originally posted by vistesd
Hello old man! 😉 Hope you and yours are well, Joe.

Doing well thank you.

It's been a long time. It warms my heart to hear from you again.

I was going to look into your profile the other day to see if you were active, but I got distracted I think.

Hope you and yours are well too. 🙂

Originally posted by Dasa
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....

Science does not claim to know the truth. Science is a process so it cannot claim anything. It is people that often attempt to claim the truth. Scientists are people like anyone else. An honourable scientist will not claim to know the truth either (although he/she can claim to know what is most likely correct based on the information at hand).

What is "supernatural"? You need to know what it is before you can even begin to measure if it exists or not.

While it might appear like there is a design, it certainly isn't obvious that is so. The use of science will determine how probable this is, and so far it shows that it is very unlikely (but not definitely so).

It is YOU that is saying there definitely is a design, so you are the one trying to claim you have the truth.

As for the ant. I have explained before that it has evolved over billions of years. A few centuries of scientific discovery will still not be sophisticated enough to put the chemicals in the right order to produce an ant in a laboratory.

Yet we can already produce robotic ants. Although this is considerably bigger and the mechanisms of carrying out tasks are achieved in a different way, the principle is similar. It is just a case of doing the same thing on a microscopic level when technology becomes advanced enough.

Originally posted by Dasa
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....

So, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster then?
And if not, why not?

Originally posted by shavixmir
So, you believe in the flying spaghetti monster then?
And if not, why not?

Because the spaghetti monster is dishonest. Spaghetti is often served with meat, which is evil and cruel.

Also, it isn't natural for us to fly. You have to build planes, which are created by bad scientists and materialists.

Monsters are also scary.

Originally posted by josephw
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.

Quote: If by phenomenon one means an event which cannot be explained by natural means, then how can science hope to discover the cause?

It should be obvious that what you suggest is not what I mean by the word. The first definition I find is "a fact, occurrence, or circumstance observed or observable: to study the phenomena of nature. (dictionary.com)

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]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.*

I. Please describe (1) the scientific method, and (2) how it can be applied to what ...[text shortened]... ___________________________

* Sorry, somehow I dropped this quote from my first version...[/b]

The OP has given the answer...

Science should embrace Vedanta and follow what it is presenting.....if they desire to understand the supernatural.

The scientific method is to conduct truthful research without bias, and to take instruction from Vedanta for understanding the supernatural.

Science cannot invent their own system of research to study the supernatural........when Vedanta has already presented the process, and science has whimsically rejected it.

I have given a very brief description of what is necessary to develop love of God in other posts.

If your enquiry is genuine ....ask one clear question at a time please.

Originally posted by lausey
Science does not claim to know the truth. Science is a process so it cannot claim anything. It is people that often attempt to claim the truth. Scientists are people like anyone else. An honourable scientist will not claim to know the truth either (although he/she can claim to know what is most likely correct based on the information at hand).

What is "sup ...[text shortened]... case of doing the same thing on a microscopic level when technology becomes advanced enough.

Scientists who are biased are not honourable.

To not see design is not truthful.

Therefore those scientists who do not see design are child abusers for presenting absurdity to the people.

All your arguments fall flat when truthfulness is discarded.

Originally posted by Dasa
Scientists who are biased are not honourable.

To not see design is not truthful.

Therefore those scientists who do not see design are child abusers for presenting absurdity to the people.

All your arguments fall flat when truthfulness is discarded.

“....Therefore those scientists who do not see design are child abusers for presenting absurdity to the people. ...”

now you imply scientists could be paedophiles for just accepting scientific facts as facts as opposed to blindly believing in your particular religious views.
Are all of us on these forums all paedophiles for failing to blindly believing in your particular religious views?
am I a paedophile for disagreeing with you?