Why Atheist/secular Science is wrong to ignore God/Metaphysics

Exactly. Math and physical observation are through the flawed mind of us humans, therefore any conclusion that any nerdy leftist scientist makes is inherently flawed. On the other hand Jesus Christ is inherently perfect therefore my flawed mind assuming that Jesus Christ the Almighty exists, is a perfect and flawless assumption.

 

Other than the fact the Bible was written by men, edited by men, and arbitrarily canonized by men.

Your argument defeats itself out the gate.

 

Are you aware that Ayn Rand was a raging atheist?

 

It seems no one is (exactly) addressing the point of the OT main idea, and only attacking side issues that are interesting and answerable/ debatable and on topic but not the main idea of my thread. So I will attempt to post a very brief abstract of the main idea of the OT. UPDATE; Its sat. morning sept 1 I haven’t read the new replies so if anyone has addressed the MT please disregard, oh...thanks to all for the replies~ Note the numbers are for reference.

Abstract

(1)The main idea was ; 'science minded strong atheists' who employ as their 'paradigm' Presumptive Atheism (PA; they do not defend their atheism its correct by default)* (2) agreed that life was possible other than earth (3)it’s possible even if exceedingly, almost infinitesimally unlikely possible that intelligent life exists or had existed in this or other universes.(4) Then it follows that the philosophical God of deism or the personal God of theism or an very advanced ET could exist even (5) if the possibility is nearly infinitesimally tiny. (6) This agreement negates the ‘theory’ of ‘positive atheism’. Therefore as per Dr Craig Koon et al. only agnosticism or atheism that allows the possibility of God to exit is valid.

God bless this forum~

reva

 

On a serious note, I don't think anyone with any philosophical sophistication ever seriously suggested that it's 100% certain that God doesn't exist, or for that matter than just about anything is 100% certain to not exist, or 100% certain to exist.

 

Hmm’ First let me say that it seems I posted the unedited version of my reply to you. (edit only for spelling and grammar), so sorry, I hate it when that happens! Onward eh?

Ok to address your comment; I agree save for the ‘vested’ part. When anyone secular scientist or politician, theists etc, common Joe goes through the problem solving process, I would claim they all have a vested interest of sorts! Broken down to its basic form the investment is the answer to the question or problem.

I may disagree by principle, not factual concerns. I will add that these subjects are really another topic and does not apply to the main idea if the OT, which is positive atheism (with PA) is irrational and unreasonable. Nevertheless, I don’t like starting new threads etc. and your replies are in the spirit of the discussion. So let me say that as I said in the first reply to you that ID differs from science story of creation in critical areas. However I feel ‘science’ itself ‘endorses’ some theories etc that violate the scientific method (SM)*. Two wrongs don’t make a right but its important to show ‘science’** can be hypocritical sometimes. Lastly sure to raise some secular eyebrows, who can say if the SM is always the best way to describe reality? I discussed this in another thread as well.

Your comment illustrates why our indoctrination into logical positivism by exclusion of all other ideas etc from K-1 to at least K-12 is dangerous. I say ‘at least’ because we continue our indoctrination through out a lifetime via everyday association with the ‘Darwinian social order’ and entities that have a interest in all citizens. Yes I know I am beginning to sound like I am wearing a tin hat etc.. but keep an open mind eh? I would claim science is not infallible indeed, we all know it has to be fallible. Basing our view of reality using science is perilous, Loquor minimus (to say the least).

Anyway, we have zero empirical evidence for what (if anything) caused the universe or universes to begin. Science does have mathematical theories by brilliant thinkers such as Hawking etc. However the theories use all sorts of props to work. Metaphysics have the logical arguments of Cosmological and ontological kind, some employing modal and other advanced forms of logic.

I find different forms of logic, ie; tense, modal etc*, employed by metaphysical arguments such as ontological/cosmological infinitely more convincing than the ‘I don’t knows of science‘, or worse when the science establishment endorses questionable theories with little or no predictive power or that violates the SM while rejecting theories that involve hypotheses with metaphysical implications.
* See; The logic of metaphysicshttp://www.ucl.ac.uk/philosophy/LPSG/L&M.htm

Most of the time secular science, and its scientists is not publicly biased (against religion or metaphysics). However… I do see evidence of most scientists that run away at warp speed screaming wildly when God is mentioned. I am sure if a small child happened to step in front of one of those white coats it would be tragic! Lol… Ok, I don’t agree that secular science is not biased. Most are. Does it intrude into their work? YES! An unbiased scientist would not ignore all possible explanations. Still there are exceptions. Lastly just for fun; Apr 10, 2006 ... When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his book. According to Barrow, biology is little more than a branch of natural history. So Barrow said to Dawkins: “You're not really a scientist Richard, you are a biologist".

Well, as I said secular scientists are not publicly biased, privately I think the majority are. And I question the validity of the entire scientific paradigm and method that is based on 'one way or the high way, get outta' my lab!!!', which in and of itself is unscientific according to the SM. Arbitrarily rejecting material out of hand is a violation of the Science method.

ID can or not be "linked to the vested interest in the religious". It can be entirely devoid of God stuff, lol. That said Creation and ID themes are kind of like the logical positive science of today. Lol. I agreed in the post that addressed that problem ID needs a standard theory, it has none. When it gets one and its endorsed by the concerned parties then and only then should it be taught as an in conjunction with or an alterative explanation of creation etc.

No its not perceived bigotry, it’s evident bigotry. For one of many examples; Not giving students a choice to choose ID over the science guess of how the universe began. Or completely rejecting the idea that Metaphysics can in some instances be employed to explain problems that secular science can not answer. I do understand that 'secular science' can not entertain every quack idea that comes to their e mail. However, ID and Progressive creation mirrors the science theories in all but a couple of areas that science can not address or when it tries it’s a educated guess at best.

Yes as I have said and you point out ID has no standard theory. Personally I think a good theory could be presented today. However the problem is getting everyone on our side to agree lol. Lastly I know why theory has to be falsifiable/changeable. However this also tells me that its not 100% truth. No theory is science law. Even science law can be wrong. In any case I would like to see students given a choice even if there is no proof that ID is correct. What harm can come if the student can reel off the 98% of science that PC mirrors but choose to believe a ID created the universe instead of sciences ‘I don’t know‘, or they presenting a untestable or non-predictive theory guess as to how the universe began etc.

But again this entire reply while thought provoking is not addressing the main idea of the OT. Eh?

God bless this forum, and the members, well those that would accept the blessing as a good thing…lol.

reva

 

The reason science ignores God is the same reason a math teacher ignores English.

The subject is science not theology.

 

I didn’t say that. I said positive atheists that employ PA either correctly or not claim its impossible for god to exist, or phrase their defense in such a way it means that they do not have to explain why their atheistic paradigm is valid. In other words its claimed atheism correct by defualt.

reva

 

I am reminded again of the common observation that the philosophy students are the most mixed up people on campus.

I heard of "god" and 'spirits" and for that matter, "dragons" when I was a kid.

For that matter, I heard of submarines, and football. My total lack of interest in
them didnt make me an asubmarinest or an aftooballist.

When I heard of flying saucers, i didnt believe they exist, and still dont.
There was no paradigm shift that suddenly took place when i heard of them, and thought the idea was dumb.

It to someone aBatboyism is claimed to be "correct by default",
Id say that relates back to my initial comment about would-be philosophers.

 

both are manmade, in the context you claim



but science describes what is real and liars describe what they want!


Hugenormous (technical term) difference

 

i am 100% certain, that i posted this.


I a 100% certain, that i live, breath and exist within the body of nature (god itself); my everything.

and I am 100% certain, that when the morons wake up to 'god' (nature, as it is), then religions will become extinct.

 

When religions ALL get page one, of the Qu'ran, we can dispense with much of the nonsense, and get to science.

But if you don't read page one, of the Qu'ran, what are we arguing about? The Muzzies will be smarter, if they can keep out of the nasty fights, due to the Sunni-Shia split, which happened when Mohammed died.

As for Christians and Jews, Judeo-Christianity is just a political union, to justify Crusades. The Jews are pound-for-pound better at science, but Christians are the reason Zionism is involved with organized crime and the effort, to start WWIII.

Science suffers, as does the planet. We are on the road, through the doorway, of Mass Extinction Event 6.

When the religious can get behind Benedict, who says something about how AGW deniers are atheists, then Christians might be of some use, until they start another fight, or until they get with Zionist Jews, to undermine all constitutional enforcement, in the US, which they did, already.

Fundamentalists were able to keep Darwin, out of most schools, until 1958, when the Russians launched Sputnik.

But you can't keep RWNJ Christians, from flooding our media, with logical fallacies and survellance-based tunes, produced by Jewish organized criminals.

Science? It's just a pawn, for Zionist Crusaders, here in the west. How's your science?

 

Not even Dawkins claim to be 100% certain.

 

It's claimed correct by default for the same reason I'm claiming that there aren't pink unicorns sending me subconscious telepathic messages to type this.