Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Polymath257]

I ask because research shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

So if you do have ASD, sadly, there is absolutely nothing anyone could do to persuade you to recognize the reality of God's necessary existence.

So, the conclusion is that those with ADS are more logical and thereby aren't as inclined to superstition? Or did you mean something else by that?

And why do you think that there is no way to convince someone logical that there is a God? Why would an 'extreme processing style' mean someone is unable to correctly explore the evidence?

 

[dybmh]

Most honorable Atanu: I propose/move that whom-ever initially brings up ASD in non-ASD debates be deemed automatic loser of the debate.

Is there a second for this motion?

 

[Polymath257]

It's ok. I recognize that not everyone with ASD is comfortable talking about it

Do you also understand that it is rather rude to suggest people have such a condition merely because they disagree with you? How about giving *logical* reasons for your conclusions instead of suggesting someone else is mentally deficient?

 

[Polymath257]

What about all those who've developed homosexual attraction and/or began suffering from Gender Dysphoria after being sexually abused by someone of their same sex?

Why don't they not matter?

They do. But the question is one of cause and effect. Can your demonstrate that there is a causal link there? Or did the abuse merely contribute to a condition that already existed? And, do you claim that ALL those with gender dysphoria or homosexual attractions are survivors of sexual abuse? If so, can you document that?

 

[Polymath257]

And actions are truth.

Accordingly, your peculiar claims have no more credible than an admitted larcenist claiming he's not a thief or an admitted terrorist claiming they're not.

Nope. One homosexual encounter doesn't make one a homosexual any more than trying oysters means that someone prefers to eat them.

 

[Polymath257]

I recognize now that this is a very sensitive subject for you and I regret any pain I've caused. That certainly has never been my intent. Hopefully you'll be able to keep this in mind and refrain from misconstruing any future rejoinders as personal attacks.

Well, you could restrain yourself from connecting ADS to a mental disorder and suggesting that makes someone unable to follow a logical argument.

 

[blü 2]

You're not making any sense. How does this answer my simple, straightforward query?

It deals with your diversion about abortion and homosexuality while you continue to avoid my simple straightforward query, which, you'll recall, is, do you believe that only those who believe in God (or, a god) can be moral?

 

[cladking]

People vastly more sophisticated than you
would not agree with your glib / facile claim.

Facile, eh?

I'd ask what you know but I already know that just like those "people sophisticated" to whom you refer that you know just about everything.

Certainly with somebody who believes in god it's impossible they might have reason and evidence that agrees.

 

[blü 2]

Yep. I've always leaned more towards formalism. Platonism just has too many unworkable assumptions.

Starting with the question, where is Platoland and how do our brains access the data it contains. And going into details like, is the form of the perfect bed single, three quarter, double, queen, king or superking?

 

[cladking]

There are in fact laws of nature. they are descriptive and not prescriptive. They describe how things work, they do not cause things to work.

I could agree with you if you'd merely stipulate that we don't yet know a single one of these "laws of nature".

 

[cladking]

Depending on how you look at his posts, they have some truth in them in that we(life) are yet a mystery. We have theories but still how it all happened is a mystery and we are still working on that mystery.

Bingo!

We think we have vast knowledge but we only think this because we experience reality in terms of our knowledge/ beliefs.

I believe reality is like an onion and we've barely even scratched its skin. Each layer is more subtle and more difficult to see or understand. But we can never make prediction or truly understand what has happened until we get to the center. Just as a butterfly in China creates hurricanes the center of the onion determines things like why its father was on top his game when it came into existence.

People see these simplistic explanations of reality and are blind to the impossible complexity that determines how time unfolds.

 

[Valjean]

Stated more explicitly, Scientism or just Radical Positivism is a terribly parochial philosophy of knowledge. On this opinion, there is certainly absolutely nothing good or evil, right or wrong, exquisite or hideous. Even so, can it be tenable to believe that experimental truth is the one and only truth that exists? That simply no aesthetic, moral, metaphysical or otherwise putative facts obtain?

Would you give us a brief summary of this "philosophy of knowledge, and explain what it has to do with "good or evil, right or wrong, exquisite or hideous?"
If there be actual aesthetic, moral, or metaphysical facts, how are we to know them, if research or testing is off the table?

Abiding by this view, for starters, the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death ( or engages in this: Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan ) is doing absolutely nothing wrong. Exactly why ought we agree to such a conclusion resulting merely from an epistemological limit? Isn’t this an indication that you ought to unlock the ambit of your beliefs and incorporate all the other different types of truth that abound?

Again, I don't understand what "this view" is, and what are these "other different types of truth" that we should heed?

Why do you say "the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death?" Why not the optometrist, Baptist or democrat who rapes a child?
Do you think there is some philosophy that condones child rape?

Now, I can point to many acts that most would find detestable today, but I could also cite historical situations and societies where these abominations were religiously justified. Religion seems to be no proof against immoral behavior.

Withal, the core principles of Gödel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem altogether gainsays Radical Positivism’s initial assumption. In fact, Science is suffused with assumptions that can never be verified scientifically. The epistemology of radical positivism, as a result, abrogates science itself.

Please explain this radical positivism. What are these assumptions that can't be verifies, and what do they have to do with morality?

Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended. Attempting to render a conclusive inductive line of reasoning for radical positivism is ridiculous as this begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, to begin with!


All the more devastating is the fact that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction demands that we not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. But what of that very supposition? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.


Alternatively, as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem makes evident, ‘Whatsoever may be bounded cannot explicate itself without referring to that which is without itself - some postulate whose certainty is unobtainable.’


This is just what famed Physicist and Mathematician James Clerk Maxwell alluded to when he came to the conclusion, “Science is incompetent to reason upon the creation of matter itself out of nothing. We have reached the utmost limit of our thinking faculties when we have admitted that because matter cannot be eternal and self-existent, it must have been created.”

Can you state your point, here? I'm not following.

 

[Valjean]

A religion without a god is just a philosophy on life. I know of no philosophy on life that provides answers to all mysteries.

Why must a religion have a God? Aren't there major religions that are essentially atheist; that treat the concept of God as inconsequential?
Are you confusing religion with theology?

 

[Milton Platt]

I could agree with you if you'd merely stipulate that we don't yet know a single one of these "laws of nature".

We "know" them because we formulate them.

Law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances. (The notion is distinct from that of a natural law—i.e., a law of right or justice supposedly derived from nature.)

Laws of nature are of two basic forms: (1) a law is universal if it states that some conditions, so far as are known, invariably are found together with certain other conditions; and (2) a law is probabilistic if it affirms that, on the average, a stated fraction of cases displaying a given condition will display a certain other condition as well. In either case, a law may be valid even though it obtains only under special circumstances or as a convenient approximation. Moreover, a law of nature has no logical necessity; rather, it rests directly or indirectly upon the evidence of experience.

Laws of universal form must be distinguished from generalizations, such as “All chairs in this office are gray,” which appear to be accidental. Generalizations, for example, cannot support counterfactual conditional statements such as “If this chair had been in my office, it would be gray” nor subjunctive conditionals such as “If this chair were put in my office, it would be gray.” On the other hand, the statement “All planetary objects move in nearly elliptical paths about their stars” does provide this support. All scientific laws appear to give similar results. The class of universal statements that can be candidates for the status of laws, however, is determined at any time in history by the theories of sciencethen current.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Why must a religion have a God? Aren't there major religions that are essentially atheist; that treat the concept of God as inconsequential?
Are you confusing religion with theology?

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Do you have another definition? Can you name a religion that does in fact not include a god or higher power?

 

[Valjean]

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Do you have another definition? Can you name a religion that does in fact not include a god or higher power?

Religion: noun.
1. A belief or set of beliefs that manifests an ethic among adherents.

 

[night912]

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Do you have another definition? Can you name a religion that does in fact not include a god or higher power?

Scientology

 

[night912]

re·li·gion
/rəˈlijən/
Learn to pronounce
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Do you have another definition? Can you name a religion that does in fact not include a god or higher power?

Your definition doesn't say that a god(s) is required. Only a "superhuman" is required.

 

[Skreeper]

Thankfully, I've never been sexually abused so the issue has never come up.

Neither have I, yet I turned out gay. How mighty curious that is. I also never chose to be gay. I mean, who in their right mind would intentionally choose a path filled with abuse and hate? If I could choose I would be straight because it's much easier than being gay.

 

[Skreeper]

Here's another biography which shows this just isn't true-

"I was one of seven children, brought up in Hermosillo, in Sonora, Mexico, an area afflicted with much poverty. My father died when I was a little boy, so my mother had to work to support us. I usually went barefoot because we had no money to buy shoes. While still young, I started working to help with the family’s expenses. Like many families, we lived crowded together.

For most of the day, my mother was not around to protect us children. When I was 6 years old, I fell victim to a 15-year-old who began to abuse me sexually. This abuse continued for a long time. One result was that I became very confused sexually. I thought it was normal to feel attracted to men. When I sought the help of doctors or clergymen, they assured me that I had no problem and that my feelings were normal.

When I was 14, I made the decision to present myself to the world as a homosexual. I stayed that way for the next 11 years, even living with several different men during that time. Eventually, I took a course to become a hair stylist and ran a beauty shop. However, I was unhappy. I led a life of suffering and betrayal. I sensed that what I was doing was not right. I started to ask myself, ‘Are there any good and worthwhile people?’

I thought of my sister. She began studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses and eventually got baptized. She would tell me what she was learning, but I paid no attention. Still, I admired her for her life and her marriage. I could see that she and her husband really loved and respected each other. They treated each other with kindness. In time, one of Jehovah’s Witnesses began to study the Bible with me. At first, I just went along with it—without enthusiasm. Then things changed.

HOW THE BIBLE CHANGED MY LIFE: The Witnesses invited me to one of their meetings, and I went. It was a new experience for me. People in general made fun of me but not the Witnesses. They greeted me kindly, and they treated me with dignity. I was moved.

My good impression of the Witnesses deepened when I attended an assembly. I saw that even in large groups, these people were like my sister—genuine and sincere. I asked myself if this might be the group of good and worthwhile people whom I had long been seeking. Their love and unity amazed me, as did their use of the Bible to answer every question. I realized that it was the Bible that was the force for good in their lives. And I saw, too, that I would have to make many changes to become one of them.

In fact, I had to undergo a complete metamorphosis, for I was living a feminine life. My speech, mannerisms, clothing, hairstyle, and choice of friends all needed changing. My former friends began to mock me, saying: “Why are you doing this? You were fine as you were. Don’t study the Bible. You have everything.” The most difficult things to change, though, were the practices of my immoral lifestyle.

Still, I knew that great changes were possible, for the Bible’s words at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 had reached my heart: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit God’s kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean.” Jehovah helped people back then to make changes, and he helped me too. It took several years and a good deal of struggling, but the guidance and love of the Witnesses helped me a great deal.

HOW I HAVE BENEFITED: Today, I lead a normal life. I am married, and my wife and I are teaching our son to live by Bible principles. My former life is far behind me now, and I enjoy many spiritual benefits and privileges. I serve as an elder in the congregation, and I have been able to help others to learn the truth of God’s Word. The changes I made in my life made my mother so happy that she accepted a Bible study and has since become a baptized Christian. A sister of mine who led an immoral life also became one of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Even some of the people who knew me in my former life now recognize that I have changed for the better. And I know what has been behind those changes. In the past I sought professional help but received only bad advice. However, Jehovah truly helped me. Although I felt unworthy, he noticed me and treated me with love and patience. The fact that such a wonderful, intelligent, loving God would take notice of me and want me to have a better life made all the difference."

Got anything that isn't JW cult propaganda? This poor person probably has been brainwashed into believing this nonsense.

Just more evidence for the abuse the JW cult causes.