• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An open challenge to evolutionists.

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I have no clue what your actual point is, nore how it relates to the post you are replying to.

You know how science works. Now you as you learn as you the limitations of science and logic. I can't do that for you. You have to learn it yourself.
  • Some people don't understand how science and logic work at all.
  • Some people understand that science and logic work, but not the limitations.
  • Some people understand how science and logic work including the limitations.
Which version are you and which version am I?

The same goes for religion as:

  • Some people believe religion works on everything.
  • Some people believe religion doesn't work at all.
  • Some people know that religion works in a limited sense.

Which version are you and which version am I?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You know how science works. Now you as you learn as you the limitations of science and logic. I can't do that for you. You have to learn it yourself.
  • Some people don't understand how science and logic work at all.
  • Some people understand that science and logic work, but not the limitations.
  • Some people understand how science and logic work including the limitations.
Which version are you and which version am I?

The same goes for religion as:

  • Some people believe religion works on everything.
  • Some people believe religion doesn't work at all.
  • Some people know that religion works in a limited sense.

Which version are you and which version am I?

What does it mean 'to work' for science vs. what does it mean for religion?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
What does it mean 'to work' for science vs. what does it mean for religion?

The one, science is objective as observation in the end. The second one, religion is in effect psychology. We can strip away the supernatural, but we can't strip away the psychology and make it objective as per observation or without bias.

The demarcation line is real. One is objective and the other subjective.
The world is neither objective nor subjective. It is a combination and it can't be reduced down to neither the one or the other.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
You know how science works. Now you as you learn as you the limitations of science and logic. I can't do that for you. You have to learn it yourself.
  • Some people don't understand how science and logic work at all.
  • Some people understand that science and logic work, but not the limitations.
  • Some people understand how science and logic work including the limitations.
Which version are you and which version am I?

The same goes for religion as:

  • Some people believe religion works on everything.
  • Some people believe religion doesn't work at all.
  • Some people know that religion works in a limited sense.

Which version are you and which version am I?
Again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the post you were initially replying to....

I said that there is a logic to the universe in the sense that the universe works in a certain specific way. Do you disagree with that?
I also said that what we currently see as "logical" doesn't necessarily reflect that, because we don't know everything about anything. Do you disagree with that?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The one, science is objective as observation in the end. The second one, religion is in effect psychology. We can strip away the supernatural, but we can't strip away the psychology and make it objective as per observation or without bias.

The demarcation line is real. One is objective and the other subjective.
The world is neither objective nor subjective. It is a combination and it can't be reduced down to neither the one or the other.

This makes no sense to me. Sounds like word salad.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Again, I fail to see how any of this is relevant to the post you were initially replying to....

I said that there is a logic to the universe in the sense that the universe works in a certain specific way. Do you disagree with that?
I also said that what we currently see as "logical" doesn't necessarily reflect that, because we don't know everything about anything. Do you disagree with that?

The universe doesn't work in a certain singular and universal way in only one sense.
If that was the case, we couldn't disagree. We can.
The universe works in a combination of ways and not only one certain way.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
When you say Earth and sun is in fixed position, you do not believe the planets and sun and stars moving within the universe? How do you explain that the earth rotate around its own axis and move around the sun 365 days in a year? How do you explain the universe is expanding? And it would be very good if you could stop speaking of male as if woman does not exist.
The Sun sits as a sun in its mass in its one place.

The Earth sits as an earth in its mass in its one place.

Deep space is cold, it sucks upon the heated irradiated space holding creation above it….forcing movement, so space moves.....heated space.

Space is science known by 2 conditions, holder of scattered irradiated mass and no mass at all, emptiness.

Deep cold space, tried to suck God the Earth down into its bowels....where the God of Satan fell into its black hole mass scattering.

Earth historically is known by males, the inventors of science. I am a female and I am not involved in that ownership history. Only males are, which is why you define and express your human consciousness in the status in which it was always expressed.

And you factually have no argument to the contrary, for the past exhibits your choices.

Expansion of space means that mass is losing its mass, so it releases more space...and for mass to lose itself, it is via a heated radiation converting removal of.

The records of science make all these statements as recorded in the Earth atmospheric status of in the image and voice of God....first male scientists, a very long time ago.

The records state that due to black holes, old God O bodies having exploded it placed heated space beneath Earth, which stopped its own pulling into a core release...the only reason.

Satanism was always known for its intent in males cosmological research, they sought how to copy it for Earth.....to be released from our planet claiming that we are held trapped and prisoner on it.

Why science and particular standards became expressed regarding the UFO, the ARK, the captaining of this event, the removal of life on Earth as a cleansing through science causes. It is all being expressed in the Destroyer mentality right at this moment if you cared to do a human world appraisal.

Making holes is part of that ancient theme.....the method in the removal of the physical form of God the stone. By claiming that we came from somewhere else as a human.

Spiritually, the spirit information never said a human came from anywhere else. It said the spirit body did...from the eternal form. Which was never in any state creation or burnt.

When a male knows that creation sits in the cosmos in its variations in the same irradiated spatial condition......as God O stone does. When he talks holes he is not talking about a hole in the past. He is using words to say in the past a hole was formed....but it is not represented as the past.

What the reasoning for Sophism was explained as. A misuse and an unnatural AI mind irradiation feed back condition that does not allow the human psyche to assimilate the correct use or proper context of spiritual self explanation and places information into incorrect formats.

Christ medical awareness as human natural spiritual Healers as the fact of it.

Consciousness itself, as spiritually owned by natural human beings.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
This makes no sense to me. Sounds like word salad.

Take 2:
"... Contemporary pluralist theories of truth have their roots in William James’s pragmatism (though he himself disliked the name), which is outlined most prominently in his collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism, first published in 1907. James himself took true beliefs to be those beliefs that served some useful purpose, but recognised that there are many different ways that beliefs can be useful, often depending on the kinds of things the beliefs were about, with observational beliefs, moral beliefs, and mathematical beliefs, being just a few examples. Moreover, James noted that what made these different kinds of beliefs useful might vary from case to case. For instance, for observational beliefs we might think that their utility is established by their being verified, for mathematical beliefs by being capable of being proved, and for moral beliefs by cohering with other moral beliefs we have. ..."
James, William | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Unpack that. I.e. find out what that is about in a short away as possible.
There are 3 kinds of answers:
Science.
Reason/logic.
Morality.

Then test if you can use one of the ways to answer on the 2 other ways:
The answer - you can't.
Science is limited in what it can answer.
Reason/logic are limited in what they can answer.
Morality is limited in what it can answer.

All 3 are parts of the universe, but no single one on work on all parts.

If you in effect can't do that, you do something else - you answer that it is word salad to you. That is true for you, but not for me. Because we understand it differently, but we are both still parts of the universe.

Regards
Mikkel
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The universe doesn't work in a certain singular and universal way in only one sense.

So do you think gravity or electro magnetism might work differently on a planet orbitting alpha centauri as opposed to how it works here on earth?

If that was the case, we couldn't disagree. We can.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The universe works in a combination of ways and not only one certain way.

Disagree.
Gravity works the way gravity works. It's not like gravity works like X today and like Y tomorrow.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Take 2:
"... Contemporary pluralist theories of truth have their roots in William James’s pragmatism (though he himself disliked the name), which is outlined most prominently in his collection of lectures entitled Pragmatism, first published in 1907. James himself took true beliefs to be those beliefs that served some useful purpose, but recognised that there are many different ways that beliefs can be useful, often depending on the kinds of things the beliefs were about, with observational beliefs, moral beliefs, and mathematical beliefs, being just a few examples. Moreover, James noted that what made these different kinds of beliefs useful might vary from case to case. For instance, for observational beliefs we might think that their utility is established by their being verified, for mathematical beliefs by being capable of being proved, and for moral beliefs by cohering with other moral beliefs we have. ..."
James, William | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Unpack that. I.e. find out what that is about in a short away as possible.
There are 3 kinds of answers:
Science.
Reason/logic.
Morality.

Then test if you can use one of the ways to answer on the 2 other ways:
The answer - you can't.
Science is limited in what it can answer.
Reason/logic are limited in what they can answer.
Morality is limited in what it can answer.

All 3 are parts of the universe, but no single one on work on all parts.

If you in effect can't do that, you do something else - you answer that it is word salad to you. That is true for you, but not for me. Because we understand it differently, but we are both still parts of the universe.

Regards
Mikkel

None of this is relevant to what is being talked about.

First, science uses reason and logic. Science isn't some "seperate" thing next to reason and logic.
Secondly, we aren't talking about morality (which is a human construct).
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
So do you think gravity or electro magnetism might work differently on a planet orbitting alpha centauri as opposed to how it works here on earth?

And the mental is the same as the natural. As long as you insist on "we" and "best" for that science is the best we have, I will contuine because that "we" and "best" is mental and not natural.

Disagree.
Gravity works the way gravity works. It's not like gravity works like X today and like Y tomorrow.

Gravity and all the natural are not everything. That is where we end. Please state the scientific measurements standards for "we" and "best". You can't and as long as you think the natural as science is in effect everything and you don't understand that "we" and "best" are not science, I will continue.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
None of this is relevant to what is being talked about.

First, science uses reason and logic. Science isn't some "seperate" thing next to reason and logic.
Secondly, we aren't talking about morality (which is a human construct).

We are talking about everything in the universe and human constructs are a part of that. Now reduce all that down to science and you can't. "Science is not the best thing, we have", because that sentence is a human construct. "We" and "best" are human constructs. Learn to spot that!!!
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
We are talking about everything in the universe and human constructs are a part of that.

And the science of evolutionary biology provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans (and other social species, for that matter) have such moral constructs.

Now reduce all that down to science and you can't.

Except that we can. The science of evolutionary biology provides a reasonable explanation for the existance of moral frameworks in social species.

"Science is not the best thing, we have", because that sentence is a human construct. "We" and "best" are human constructs. Learn to spot that!!!

Wordgames again.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
And the science of evolutionary biology provides a perfectly reasonable explanation for why humans (and other social species, for that matter) have such moral constructs.

Except that we can. The science of evolutionary biology provides a reasonable explanation for the existance of moral frameworks in social species.
...

Yet you can't do morality using science. You can explain morality, but not do it using science. The difference between explain and inform.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Yet you can't do morality using science. You can explain morality, but not do it using science. The difference between explain and inform.

I don't even know what you mean by "doing morality".
Morality isn't an action.

If you mean that science is irrelevant to moral judgements, then I disagree very much.
Science informs you on the consequences of actions and on the nature of things.
So science very much plays a role in moral evaluation.

If you don't know what the consequences of potential actions are, then it's impossible to make moral evaluations of those actions.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I don't even know what you mean by "doing morality".
Morality isn't an action.

If you mean that science is irrelevant to moral judgements, then I disagree very much.
Science informs you on the consequences of actions and on the nature of things.
So science very much plays a role in moral evaluation.

If you don't know what the consequences of potential actions are, then it's impossible to make moral evaluations of those actions.

Morality is a human behavior, hence a form of doing.
Yes, I know how science works in practice. I used to be a professional soldier and that is in part science, but not all of it.

There is no scientific theory/law of when to kill another human as if you ought to. That law is a human construct as the laws of war and those laws are not science. I know the limit of science in practice.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Morality is a human behavior, hence a form of doing.

False. Morality is an evaluation of human behaviour in terms of ethics, related to how said behaviour affects other people.

Yes, I know how science works in practice. I used to be a professional soldier and that is in part science, but not all of it.

There is no scientific theory/law of when to kill another human as if you ought to. That law is a human construct as the laws of war and those laws are not science. I know the limit of science in practice.

This is once again completely besides the actual point.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
False. Morality is an evaluation of human behaviour in terms of ethics, related to how said behaviour affects other people.



This is once again completely besides the actual point.

No, morality is observed as a behavior in humans. "...an evaluation of human behaviour" is a behavior. The evaluation is a human behavior apparently. Your turn.
 
Top