The trouble with modern philosophy
D Maitre
not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
"God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
from everyday thought.
That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
there is no God. This foolishness occurs because the two
possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist". This
because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
"because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Greek word for
"knowledge".
To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", or
philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
Here's why:
If I were to disprove the "scientific" theory "there is no God" by
presenting a god, Jesus Christ, to scientists, they could say, "I've
seen his power, but I don't believe that he is a supernatural spirit
god. I believe that he is an alien with powers that we don't yet
understand. He's not supernatural. He is a part of this material
universe, sprang from this material universe and we will
scientifically study him." To scientists such an attitude would be
scientifically valid, philosophically acceptable, since Jesus could
disprove it to them by allowing them to see the spirit realm and by
allowing them to study the angels, but scientists could hold that the
theory "Jesus is a supernatural spirit god" would be unscientific
since scientists could not in anyway disprove it. How could they
disprove Jesus' spirit nature? There is no conceivable scientific
method for doing so. (What's more, how could they disprove a
"truth"?) Such a path could continue for eons if not forever with
scientists stubbornly refusing to accept as scientific truth the
existence of the supernatural even as they become liable to the lake
of fire.
It follows that no matter what a powerful being might do to a
scientist, a modern, politically correct, philosophically acceptable
scientist could explain the activities of the powerful being as being
something other than supernatural. Therefore, religious humanism must
be the de facto religion of the accepted scientist. The gap between
scientists and Christians is not one of knowledge, but one of
religion.
The problem with modern philosophy is, for one thing, that it makes a
religious statement and uses the statement for the basis of its body
of knowledge without admitting that it's "science" is based on a
religious assumption, but, instead, calls it's science indisputable
fact. More than one intellectual has called universities temples and
professors the priests of the modern religion. To become a Christian,
the modern scientist has to abandon the philosophy of modern
"science". Further, because of the required "disputability" of
"scientific" theories, if the supernatural does exist, it, in theory,
could never be accepted as fact by a modern scientist. (However, I
believe that, in reality, God has a way to prove His supremacy to each
person, and this apart from artificial, man-made philosophies.)
Why are scientists so close-minded? Why can they not change their
philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence? The
philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
existence.
bogie
"D Maitre" <DanielM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761f886f.04050...@posting.google.com...
<snipping only to say this:>
We're gonna have fun with you.
I'm going to bed now. I'll be back to participate in the "bloodshed"
tomorrow.
bogie
Enkidu
DanielM...@hotmail.com says...
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
> not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
If your theory is unproven, and is in principle unverifiable either way,
there is no reason to discuss it.
> Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
> no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
> find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
> "God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
> However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
> from everyday thought.
Maybe not laughable, but certainly unscientific.
> That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
> religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
> there is no God.
You know, you just don;t understand science, and I don't feel like
teaching you.
Good bye.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
Jim07D4
>Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
>not exist.
But is it because it is philosophy, or because it is modern? As in
Modernism, that is.
Jim07D4
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
> not exist.
Nonsense.
> The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
You equate (equivocate) 'scientific' with 'philosophically valid'?
Science doesn't prohibit the possible existance of gods.
Bring 'em on.
Bring out your gods.
Theists have to define their gods to be invisible and hidden
in the gaps, just where they can't be seen.
That is because your feeble delusions
can't stand the light of day.
Bring out your gods.
I'd like to win the Nobel Physics Prize for showing:
F = ma - (God's will)
> Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
> no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
> find heaven, for that matter),
Strange. What a coincidence that heaven is
defined as unreportable, by scientist or anyone.
> scientists conclude that the statement
> "God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
> However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
> from everyday thought.
You designed your god to escape scrutiny.
>
> That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
> religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
> there is no God.
Nonsense. Misrepresentation.
> This foolishness
<... gets snipped here.>
The Watcher
(snip)
>It follows that
I just love the way these theists(yes, the same ones who just love to attack
logic) TRY to use logic to prove their silly ideas. "Logic is a bad thing", they
like to say. OK, usually they prefer to just imply it, since that way they have
some room to weasel out when challenged about it, but they do spend a lot of
time harping on how fallible and imperfect logic is(all the while worshipping
their own even more fallible and imperfect "truth-apprehension" system known as
blind faith).
bogie
"D Maitre" <DanielM...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:761f886f.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
> not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
1) Incorrect. It doesn't follow the scientific method if it isn't
"falsifiable". In other words, if it leaves itself an escape hatch (such as
"God didn't act because you lack faith"), then it's not falsifiable. If
it's not falsifiable, then it's not scientific. (apologies to Dr. Popper)
> Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
> no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
> find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
> "God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
> However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
> from everyday thought.
2) This is nonsense. The reason science doesn't deal in questions of god is
because science deals in things natural. God (if one should exist) is, by
definition, supernatural. It thus falls outside the purview of science.
This isn't a purposeful omission. There's no evil science conspiracy
happening in some smokey back room. Science simply doesn't deal in
questions of the supernatural.
>
> That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
> religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
> there is no God.
3) Bullshit. No scientist accepts mere statements as proof of anything.
This foolishness occurs because the two
> possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
> no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
> statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
> answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist". This
> because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
> by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
> supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
> scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
> it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
> misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
> God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
> scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
> "because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
> immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
> assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Greek word for
> "knowledge".
4) More bullshit. This is an xtian mantra, not a scientific one. Ever
heard the silliness that goes, "I know that I know that I know"? That vomit
spews out of the mouths of xtians almost daily. You won't find that in
science. You won't find one person here who says, "god doesn't exist
because he doesn't exist". You will find people here who might say
something like, "god doesn't exist because, despite the best efforts to the
contrary, nobody seems to be able to present compelling proof for his
existence." You might even find people here who simply say, "I simply lack
belief in any god or gods. Always have."
>
> To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
> knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", or
> philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
> lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
> Here's why:
Oh goodie. I can't wait for this one....
>
> If I were to disprove the "scientific" theory "there is no God" by
> presenting a god, Jesus Christ, to scientists, they could say, "I've
> seen his power, but I don't believe that he is a supernatural spirit
> god. I believe that he is an alien with powers that we don't yet
> understand. He's not supernatural. He is a part of this material
> universe, sprang from this material universe and we will
> scientifically study him." To scientists such an attitude would be
> scientifically valid, philosophically acceptable, since Jesus could
> disprove it to them by allowing them to see the spirit realm and by
> allowing them to study the angels, but scientists could hold that the
> theory "Jesus is a supernatural spirit god" would be unscientific
> since scientists could not in anyway disprove it. How could they
> disprove Jesus' spirit nature? There is no conceivable scientific
> method for doing so. (What's more, how could they disprove a
> "truth"?) Such a path could continue for eons if not forever with
> scientists stubbornly refusing to accept as scientific truth the
> existence of the supernatural even as they become liable to the lake
> of fire.
5) You're obviously speaking out of ignorance here. Your very words are
self-defeating. "Existence of the supernatural" is self-contradictory. In
order for humans to be certain that something exists, it must present itself
in the realm we inhabit -- the natural world. Outside of this context, the
concept of existence is meaningless because it's a naturalistic construct.
If you can prove that the supernatural exists, then please do so. Here's my
prediction: you can't do it. Oh, you can quote religious texts, and
regurgitate apologetics that you think are compelling. But you won't be
able to produce a shred of supernatural anything here in the natural world.
By definition, it cannot be done. As soon as the supernatural enters the
natural world, it becomes natural and ceases to be supernatural -- and thus
cannot be a god by any definition.
>
> It follows that no matter what a powerful being might do to a
> scientist, a modern, politically correct, philosophically acceptable
> scientist could explain the activities of the powerful being as being
> something other than supernatural. Therefore, religious humanism must
> be the de facto religion of the accepted scientist. The gap between
> scientists and Christians is not one of knowledge, but one of
> religion.
6a) This is a ridiculous paragraph. First of all, you're only begging the
question. You haven't established anything in the previous points, so to
say "It follows that...." is just moronic. b) It's completely
understandable that any scientist would seek alternative explanations for
whatever phenomenon he may encounter, rather than simply throw up his hands
and say, "goddidit". It's called a principle called "parsimony". A theory
that explains and predicts, with the fewest necessary assumptions, is a
stronger theory than one which requires outside, supernatural intervention.
Such intervention only serves to complicate matters. You obviously don't
get this. Hang around here for a while. Maybe you'll catch on. c) And
could you please define "religious humanism"? What the hell is that?
>
> The problem with modern philosophy is, for one thing, that it makes a
> religious statement and uses the statement for the basis of its body
> of knowledge without admitting that it's "science" is based on a
> religious assumption, but, instead, calls it's science indisputable
> fact.
7) What religious assumption? On the contrary, science attempts to
construct theories requiring as few assumptions as possible. Since science
can only deal in natural things, then obviously, supernatural assumptions
are out of the question. You see this as an a priori exclusion based upon
rebellion, or something. It's not.
More than one intellectual has called universities temples and
> professors the priests of the modern religion. To become a Christian,
> the modern scientist has to abandon the philosophy of modern
> "science". Further, because of the required "disputability" of
> "scientific" theories, if the supernatural does exist, it, in theory,
> could never be accepted as fact by a modern scientist. (However, I
> believe that, in reality, God has a way to prove His supremacy to each
> person, and this apart from artificial, man-made philosophies.)
8) You'd think so, anyway. Surely, an all-loving, all-powerful,
all-knowing, all-present god would have this as a top priority. Surely the
one who created the scientific mind would know what sort of evidence that
mind would require. Surely the one who created the skeptical mind would
make his presence exceedingly obvious to that mind. I wonder what the
hold-up is. Do you know?
>
> Why are scientists so close-minded? Why can they not change their
> philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
> own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence?
9) "Zone of Proximal Development", buddy. Lev Vygotsky helped us
understand this. It's simple. Teachers everywhere utilize it. See, if a
student is given information or a challenge beyond his zone of proximal
development, then she won't grasp it because she simply isn't equipped to
grasp it. The teacher bears the responsibility for shaping their teaching
so that the student learns. The student isn't responsible for their lack of
learning if the teacher "teaches over her head". In the case of a god, the
same thing applies. We would be the students, and god would be the teacher
. . . and you'd think that any god that created humans would understand
this. Evidently, from your phrase, "proves on its own terms", this god
doesn't grasp this incredibly simple principle.
The
> philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
> more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
> their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
> reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
> existence.
10) Pot....kettle. Kettle....pot.
bogie
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
news:40973027...@news.ritternet.com:
Yeah. The same thing occurs with their attitude to science. They tell you
that science/evolution is wrong blah blah but then cite so called
creation scientists as though anyone is fooled into thinking that the
epiphet 'scientists' enhances their credibility. What a joke! Another
common example is radiometric dating. Where it disproves their beliefs
they deny it and make up all sorts of nincompoop excuses as to why it is
wrong. Then in the next breath they are saying, 'see science proves the
buybull right'. It's cognitive disonance gone mad.
LK.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
>not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
>of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
>not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
What utter tripe. You have no idea what science is, or you are lying
for Jesus.
snip of remaining evidence of an extremely poor education or a total
lack of integrity.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
Don Claytoni....Man of La Munchie
> not exist.
Doesn't sound like a problem to me.
Of course it's not true...plenty of modern philosophy is based on theism.
But of course the fact that reality continually makes the concept of God
more and more ridiculous and the increasing public awareness that theism
causes profoundly negative and destructive mind sets, it is inevitable that
G*O*D will be increasingly blown away by the wind of intellect.
Damn that pesky reality!!!
Levy Oates
>The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
>of God's existence
Which god?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
Risto Karttunen
>
> "Existence of the supernatural" is self-contradictory. In
> order for humans to be certain that something exists, it must present itself
> in the realm we inhabit -- the natural world. Outside of this context, the
> concept of existence is meaningless because it's a naturalistic construct.
>
sentence, as one contemporary Finnish philosopher puts it - that is,
in a different category than the words and phrases of that sentence,
which are propositions about the natural world, logic etc. The period
puts an end to our ponderous ponderings.
--
risto
Don Kresch
DanielM...@hotmail.com (D Maitre) let us all know that:
>Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
>not exist.
False.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
SMChristenson
> find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
> "God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
I prefer the more literal and non-connotative term "nonsensical".
Mark K. Bilbo
<761f886f.04050...@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
DanielM...@hotmail.com (D Maitre):
<snippage>
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does not
> exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility of
> God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is not
> scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved. Since the
> idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because no scientist
> can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even find heaven, for
> that matter), scientists conclude that the statement "God exists in
> heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable; However, this
> philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural from everyday
> thought.
You haven't the slightest idea what you're babbling about. That is a
seriously distorted and untrue view of falsifiability.
> To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
> knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science",
That's only because it *is psuedo-science.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
Sara Brum
wrote in message news:4097488a$0$12481$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
It's only inevitable if the fundies can be kept out of the education system
and government. That's not yet a certainty.
bogie
"Risto Karttunen" <ti...@iobox.fi> wrote in message
news:5c1b9d0f.04050...@posting.google.com...
Which is a major part of the problem I have with it. Not only does it only
serve to muddy the waters of curiousity by posing more questions than it
answers, it also attempts to stifle that curiousity.
I suppose to some it's comforting. To me, it's irritating.
bogie
Brian E. Clark
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
> not exist.
Really? I guess people like William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne
should be considered, what, short-order cooks?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Dixit
Sara Brum wrote:
We can work around the knuckleheads. Look, they are no longer getting
away with hanging "witches" in Salem!
Sara Brum
news:c3Qlc.31574$kh4.1547729@attbi_s52...
No, but they do seem to be gaining momentum. The fundies only need to
convince the majority of thought-starved sheeple to win the day. *sigh*
Dixit
Sara Brum wrote:
Bite your tongue! What we need to concentrate on seeing is logical,
scientific discovery of the nature of things gaining momentum every day.
>The fundies only need to
> convince the majority of thought-starved sheeple to win the day. *sigh*
It takes more than a simple majority to amend the constitution, doesn't it?
I don't know about you, but I am going around my neighborhood talking to
everybody I can about how peace and liberty and justice for all, and one
nation under the constitution, is what we are aiming for?
Don't buy into the alleged inevitability of a global theocracy. Resist!
We have to be convinced that reason shall prevail, otherwise we lose by
default.
Virgil
wrote:
The knuckleheads trying to force religion down our throatswe can deal
with if only it were not for the knuckleheads on our side (like Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, who is against enforced religion but also is
against reason) who make things more difficult.
Ian Braidwood
I'm sorry, but that just seems like pseudo-intellectual tripe.
(-: Ian :-)
Virgil
wrote:
> Sara Brum wrote:
> >>We can work around the knuckleheads. Look, they are no longer getting
> >>away with hanging "witches" in Salem!
> >
> >
> > No, but they do seem to be gaining momentum.
>
> Bite your tongue! What we need to concentrate on seeing is logical,
> scientific discovery of the nature of things gaining momentum every day.
Science does not have, and will never have, all the answers. And Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple, doesn't know much about the answers that
science does have.
>
> >The fundies only need to
> > convince the majority of thought-starved sheeple to win the day. *sigh*
>
> It takes more than a simple majority to amend the constitution, doesn't it?
Majorities on the supreme court have, in effect, amended it many times.
Fortunately most of those "interpretatiions" have been beneficial, or at
least benign.
>
> I don't know about you, but I am going around my neighborhood talking to
> everybody I can about how peace and liberty and justice for all, and one
> nation under the constitution, is what we are aiming for?
Is that a statement or a question? And, if a question, what is it asking?
>
> Don't buy into the alleged inevitability of a global theocracy. Resist!
> We have to be convinced that reason shall prevail, otherwise we lose by
> default.
As Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, is the prime anti-theist example of
faith without proof, his appeal to reason is self-contradictory.
Walking on Glass
write in alt.atheism,
news:ITSnetNOTcom/virgil-F9569A.13354904052004@[63.218.45.211]:
> In article <HoRlc.31699$0H1.2602096@attbi_s54>, Dixit <d...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sara Brum wrote:
>
>> >>We can work around the knuckleheads. Look, they are no longer
>> >>getting away with hanging "witches" in Salem!
>> >
>> >
>> > No, but they do seem to be gaining momentum.
>>
>> Bite your tongue! What we need to concentrate on seeing is logical,
>> scientific discovery of the nature of things gaining momentum every
>> day.
>
> Science does not have, and will never have, all the answers.
But it has a better track record than theology for divining (pun
intended) truth about the universe.
--
Walking on Glass (remove NOSPAM to email me)
AA #2053 Zymurgist #12
"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or
you can inoculate...Try science"
Carl Sagan - "The Demon-Haunted World"
Josef Balluch
In a message sent 'round the world, D Maitre poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
> Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
> not exist.
This should come as quite a shock for Alvin Plantinga and William Lane
Craig.
> The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
> of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
> not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
Nonsense. Lack of falsifiability has no bearing on the possibility of
existence.
...
> However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
> from everyday thought.
Not really. Science simply ignores those areas it is not capable of
addressing.
> That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
> religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
> there is no God.
ROTFL !!
> This foolishness occurs because the two
> possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
> no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
> statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
> answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist".
"This foolishness" is entirely a straw man of your own construction.
> This
> because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
> by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
> supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
> scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
> it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
> misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
> God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
> scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
> "because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
> immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
> assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Greek word for
> "knowledge".
Yada, yada, yada. Get over it, already.
> To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
> knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", ...
Which it is.
> ... or
> philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
> lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
> Here's why:
This is gonna be good .....!
> If I were to disprove the "scientific" theory "there is no God" ...
LOL !! It ain't a "scientific" theory, because it posits something
outside the realm of scientific investigation.
> ... by
> presenting a god, Jesus Christ, to scientists, they could say, "I've
> seen his power, but I don't believe that he is a supernatural spirit
> god. I believe that he is an alien with powers that we don't yet
> understand. He's not supernatural. He is a part of this material
> universe, sprang from this material universe and we will
> scientifically study him." To scientists such an attitude would be
> scientifically valid, philosophically acceptable, since Jesus could
> disprove it to them by allowing them to see the spirit realm and by
> allowing them to study the angels, but scientists could hold that the
> theory "Jesus is a supernatural spirit god" would be unscientific
> since scientists could not in anyway disprove it. How could they
> disprove Jesus' spirit nature? There is no conceivable scientific
> method for doing so.
It is ridiculous to ask science to address matters outside of it's
jurisdiction. But if you really want to insist that they should do so
then it is quite clear that if you ask scientists to look at some matter
then they can only do so using the tools at their disposal, namely the
scientific method.
> (What's more, how could they disprove a
> "truth"?)
Logically speaking, you cannot do so. But you cannot demonstrate that
you have presented a truth.
> Such a path could continue for eons if not forever with
> scientists stubbornly refusing to accept as scientific truth the
> existence of the supernatural ...
ROTFL !! You want it accepted as "scientific" truth, yet you
acknowledged that science cannot address the matter!!!!!
> ... even as they become liable to the lake
> of fire.
< chuckle >
Another wannabe savior!
> It follows that no matter what a powerful being might do to a
> scientist, a modern, politically correct, philosophically acceptable
> scientist could explain the activities of the powerful being as being
> something other than supernatural.
If so then there is no proof, in the logical sense, for your claim. A
logical proof, by it's nature, must be compelling.
> Therefore, religious humanism must
> be the de facto religion of the accepted scientist.
Non Sequitur. Your hypothetical scenario has not been enacted so the
outcome is purely speculative. And, as is well known, there are plenty
of scientists who are theists.
> The gap between
> scientists and Christians is not one of knowledge, but one of
> religion.
Why restrict your claim to Christians? But in any case, there are plenty
of scientists who ARE Christian.
> The problem with modern philosophy is, for one thing, that it makes a
> religious statement and uses the statement for the basis of its body
> of knowledge without admitting that it's "science" is based on a
> religious assumption, but, instead, calls it's science indisputable
> fact.
ROTFL !!
Does the term "falsifiable" mean anything to you?
> More than one intellectual has called universities temples and
> professors the priests of the modern religion. To become a Christian,
> the modern scientist has to abandon the philosophy of modern
> "science".
That should come as a shock to quite a few scientists who are Christian.
> Further, because of the required "disputability" of
> "scientific" theories, if the supernatural does exist, it, in theory,
> could never be accepted as fact by a modern scientist.
That's the nature of the scientific method. If you are determined to
have your "theory" accepted as science then you will have to live with
this condition.
> (However, I
> believe that, in reality, God has a way to prove His supremacy to each
> person, and this apart from artificial, man-made philosophies.)
Then why get your shorts in a knot because science doesn't give it's
blessing to your deity?
> Why are scientists so close-minded?
LOL !!
> Why can they not change their
> philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
> own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence?
If the "supernatural" can actually do so then what's your beef?
If you can "prove" your claims then why do you need the approval of
science?
> The
> philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
> more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
> their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
> reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
> existence.
Actually, all that is required is that you obtain a reality check.
Regards,
Josef
Be careful of your thoughts; they may become words at any moment.
-- Iara Gassen
Risto Karttunen
>
> Risto Karttunen wrote:
> >
> > I think the concept of God is like a period which terminates a
> > sentence, as one contemporary Finnish philosopher puts it - that is,
> > in a different category than the words and phrases of that sentence,
> > which are propositions about the natural world, logic etc. The period
> > puts an end to our ponderous ponderings.
>
> serve to muddy the waters of curiousity by posing more questions than it
> answers, it also attempts to stifle that curiousity.
>
koans, for example. You just have to switch into a different mode of
thinking, change that category, as it were.
--
risto
Risto Karttunen
>
> Risto Karttunen wrote:
>
> > I think the concept of God is like a period which terminates a
> > sentence, as one contemporary Finnish philosopher puts it - that is,
> > in a different category than the words and phrases of that sentence,
> > which are propositions about the natural world, logic etc. The period
> > puts an end to our ponderous ponderings.
>
> I'm sorry, but that just seems like pseudo-intellectual tripe.
>
or rationalization here. They prevent the mind from getting quiet,
which is a necessary prerequisite.
--
risto
Ian Braidwood
My mind will get all the quiet it needs when I'm dead.
Until then: GIVE ME NOISE! :-)
(-: Ian :-)
Risto Karttunen
>
> My mind will get all the quiet it needs when I'm dead.
>
> Until then: GIVE ME NOISE! :-)
>
if you start talking about religious matters amidst that noise.
--
risto