Those big bad cheating science people. (more basics)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“....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?

What does paedophilia got to do with what I have said........nothing.

This is another straw-man comment to create agitation.

Originally posted by JS357
"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.

"Mate ...[text shortened]... "Get rid of the pollution and then God may be perceived."

--Whence the pollution?

Purified mind and heart and intelligence can perceive God.

One has to submit to the process to be purified presented by Vedanta....or their polluted mind shall not perceive.

Persons who want to perceive God but whimsically reject the process to become pure............are not genuine.

Originally posted by Dasa
What does paedophilia got to do with what I have said........nothing.

This is another straw-man comment to create agitation.

You IMPLIED it:

“.... scientists who do not see design are CHILD ABUSERS ...” (my emphasis, your quote)

OK, I suppose you would now claim you did not mean paedophilia from “child abusers”.
So what DID you mean by “child abusers”? Are you saying scientists who do not see intelligent design in nature are cruel to children in some other way?
Well, I don't see intelligent design in nature -so are you saying I am a child abuser who is cruel to children because of this?

does your hatred of anyone that disagrees with your religious beliefs have any bounds?

Originally posted by Dasa
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 sup ...[text shortened]... f God in other posts.

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

The scientific method can either be applied to the supernatural, or it cannot. Your response here indicates that it cannot. I agree.

Per your request, I will ask a single clear question at a time. It is not scientific, but logical.

Can you demonstrate that the conjunction of the following two premises—i.e., “A &B”—results in a logical contradiction?

A: The natural order is coherent; and

B: There is no supernatural category.

Originally posted by vistesd
The scientific method can either be applied to the supernatural, or it cannot. Your response here indicates that it cannot. I agree.

Per your request, I will ask a single clear question at a time. It is not scientific, but logical.

Can you demonstrate that the conjunction of the following two premises—i.e., “A &B”—results in a logical contradiction?

A: The natural order is coherent; and

B: There is no supernatural category.

What do you mean by 'natural order is coherent'?

You are implying if there is a supernatural nature, natural order is non-coherent?

Not sure what you mean by coherent.

Logical evolution from lower states to higher or less complex to more complex?

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 ...[text shortened]... have no gaps in it, even if such was potentially possible! some god plays no part in this.

On Answers.com there is a list of words related to
Genetics, Heredity, and Evolution taken from
Random House Word Menu:

abiogenesis - discredited theory that living organism can develop by
spontaneous generation from inanimate material.

Originally posted by sonhouse
What do you mean by 'natural order is coherent'?

You are implying if there is a supernatural nature, natural order is non-coherent?

Not sure what you mean by coherent.

Logical evolution from lower states to higher or less complex to more complex?

By “coherent” here, I mean no more than that the natural order is generally amenable to logical analysis: e.g., that no empirical observation could legitimately result in the following proposition being true: “If p, then q; p, therefore not-q”. [Scientific inquiry, it seems to me, would be impossible without such logical coherency; and philosophical inquiry would be invalid.] Thanks for the question, so I could clarify what I did not make clear.

The theistic argument sometimes seems to be that if the natural order is coherent, then that somehow implies the existence of the supernatural (extra-natural) as a necessary epistemological/metaphysical category—and not only that, but obviously so to honest observers. If that is the case then it should be clearly demonstrable that the proposed conjunction results in a logical contradiction (reductio ad absurdum).

Dasa’s argument seems to be, in part, that recognition of coherency in the natural order while rejecting the supernatural is somehow inconsistent—even, perhaps, dishonestly (or at least self-deceptively) so. I am only asking that he show what he says—or else correct me in that that is not what he is saying at all.

Personally, I don’t think that such a logical contradiction can be shown—but I might be wrong.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
You IMPLIED it:

“.... scientists who do not see design are [b]CHILD ABUSERS ...” (my emphasis, your quote)

OK, I suppose you would now claim you did not mean paedophilia from “child abusers”.
So what DID you mean by “child abusers”? Are you saying scientists who do not see intelligent design in nature are cruel to children in some ...[text shortened]... this?

does your hatred of anyone that disagrees with your religious beliefs have any bounds?[/b]

Why are you using words like paedophilia, cruel to children and hatred.......this means you are clearly creating straw-man arguments from thin air, and this is coming from your untruthful platform.

Is it not possible to embrace truthfulness and then speak.....instead of embracing untruthfulness at every opportunity to prop up false claims.

Originally posted by vistesd
The scientific method can either be applied to the supernatural, or it cannot. Your response here indicates that it cannot. I agree.

Per your request, I will ask a single clear question at a time. It is not scientific, but logical.

Can you demonstrate that the conjunction of the following two premises—i.e., “A &B”—results in a logical contradiction?

A: The natural order is coherent; and

B: There is no supernatural category.

For me the unexplained/unknown part of our universe, which by many accounts are starnge and wonderful beyond our ken, all falls under the word"natural" for me.
So there is no need for the word (or the idea) "supernatural". Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
Just because science hasn't yet found a framework in which to analyze these unkown "forces" or unexplaind phenomana, I do not see a need to call it "supernatural".

Plus our language is changing, and very fast too.
I thought my generation was revolutionary (x generation). By gosh, we are like the baby boomers to them. My daughter (daisychainsaw) for example is so naturally in tune with a lot of spiritual concepts that I was struggling with in my mid twenties.

edit: despite the inbuilt knowledge this new generation is born with, there is still no substitute for life experience. We need them just as much as they need us.

Originally posted by Dasa
Why are you using words like paedophilia, cruel to children and hatred...this means you are clearly creating straw-man arguments from thin air, and this is coming from your untruthful platform. .

Why did you use words like "syphilis of brain" and "a 7 year old child with cerebral palsy" and "stool eating pigs" to try to insult people with belief systems that differed from yours? Does your dysfunctional track record of raw personal abuse on this forum constitute a "truthful platform"?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
For me the unexplained/unknown part of our universe, which by many accounts are starnge and wonderful beyond our ken, all falls under the word"natural" for me.
So there is no need for the word (or the idea) "supernatural". Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
Just because science hasn't yet found a framework in which to analyze these unkown "for ...[text shortened]... is still no substitute for life experience. We need them just as much as they need us.

Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?

Precisely. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
The scientific method can either be applied to the supernatural, or it cannot. Your response here indicates that it cannot. I agree.

Per your request, I will ask a single clear question at a time. It is not scientific, but logical.

Can you demonstrate that the conjunction of the following two premises—i.e., “A &B”—results in a logical contradiction?

A: The natural order is coherent; and

B: There is no supernatural category.

The scientific process can be used to determine the supernatural if the correct scientific method is followed.

Scientific method is not bound by the use of telescopes, microscopes and test tubes......but the pure heart and mind shall become our test tube.

The following is the correct scientific method.....

When dealing with the super natural, it is a given that material apparatus must be discarded and different tools to be used in the research..... this would be considered the correct scientific approach. (the right tools for the job)

Therefore science do not have the right tools for the research of the supernatural......so they must investigate to find the right tools.

When they have truthfully investigated and have found the tools presented by Vedanta.............they then have two choices.

1. use those tools and follow the instructions exactly.....or

2. reject those tools and remain lost in their researching of the supernatural.

Not all science people reject the tools of Vedanta, and we have many who are using those tools and are understanding God......but the untruthful science persons reject these tools and then declare that their is no super natural. (this is cheating science)

A contradiction will occur between natural order and the supernatural, where the study of both are not done truthfully.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?

Precisely. 🙂[/b]

Thanks for the dose of sanity. It has been a bit lacking on these threads in general in the past few weeks, unfortunaley 🙂

Originally posted by karoly aczel
For me the unexplained/unknown part of our universe, which by many accounts are starnge and wonderful beyond our ken, all falls under the word"natural" for me.
So there is no need for the word (or the idea) "supernatural". Do you see what I'm trying to get at here?
Just because science hasn't yet found a framework in which to analyze these unkown "for ...[text shortened]... is still no substitute for life experience. We need them just as much as they need us.

Why not just tell it like it is and use the word "God"?

What was before God?

Either God has always been, in which case anything else could also have always been (along the same argumentation). So, energy (or matter or whatever) will always have been. Since it has not always been the same, it has evolved (changed).

Or Something created God. And if something created God, what created that something? This would automatically lead to a divine evolution of sorts.

No matter how you look at it, something evolved from something else.