• 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!

Interesting That There Is No Word In The Bible For Natural And Supernatural

james bond

Well-Known Member
I would retort "By doing this!", then with my final breaths I would knock him out and switch clothes with him.

Ha ha. Good luck with that. Maybe you'll be arguing over one word with Jesus. Again, both Hebrew and other editions, we'll argue over one word. Maybe it may not even be one word. I think usually we have to clarify what the Hebrew word means or implies in context. For example, in Hebrew, hell means grave; Heaven means above, sky. Thus, one needs experienced help to understand.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Most ancient cultures of the Middle East and Europe did not make a clear distinction between natural and supernatural, because they considered most of their myths and legends as natural and factual. It was some of the the Greek philosophers Cicero in 1st century BCE and the Romans, Lucretius was a first century AD Roman philosopher and poet that tried to clearly make the distinction.

Isn't judgment implied if one considers something natural = factual. People didn't know what they believed or thought true were myths and legends during their time. We can say the same thing about science and pseudoscience. We had a generation who believed in the Piltdown Man in order to show we descended from apes and evolution. Thus, how can someone say natural = factual when they could be myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies?
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
The word supernatural was coined by Charles Tart, a psychologist and parapsychologist, who did research on the nature of consciousness (mind-altering drugs), psychokinesis and ESP. The word natural isn't in the Bible either. I could not find who coined it, but "nature vs. nurture" was coined by Frances Galton (notorious for eugenics which led to the Holocaust and black genocide), Darwin's cousin. The word scientist was coined by theologian, William Whewell.

The Scripture does not use the terms "natural" or "supernatural", nor does it use these concepts in particular. The Bible uses the terms "heavenly", "spiritual", "earthy/earthly", "temporal", "seen" and "unseen", etc. The terms "natural" and "supernatural" are in fact secular definitions used to delineate between the physical, measurable existence (natural) and make-believe (supernatural). In other words, for the secularist, the term "supernatural" is where all make-believe has a home, whether God, demons, angels and eternal souls, but also zombies, vampires, pixies, faeries etc. Conversely, the "natural" world is the world where "God is not". The Scripture asserts (Hebrews 1:3) that the entire creation is upheld by the "word of his power". So there is no place in the creation where "God is not". This means that the "natural world" that the secularist believes in, doesn't exist. It's make-believe. And if this is true, then the supernatural world that the secularist designates as make-believe, is completely make-believe. In short, the claims of the secularists of a natural/supernatural world are contrived. There's no such thing as either one. There is only "the creation", made with living creatures and heavenly beings which cohabitate on the same space/matter/time fabric.

Naturalism - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

Thus, it seems that man is not the one who made up God, but not God. And thus, we need to redefine some terms in the name of science such as natural and supernatural. They're both self-serving mechanisms.
They don't have words for gamete, democracy, penguin, or fiction either.
All I draw from this is that it was a primitive language used by a primitive people in a primitive culture.

So what? Am I supposed to assume that they knew more about God or Creation or something as a result?
Tom
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Isn't judgment implied if one considers something natural = factual. People didn't know what they believed or thought true were myths and legends during their time. We can say the same thing about science and pseudoscience. We had a generation who believed in the Piltdown Man in order to show we descended from apes and evolution. Thus, how can someone say natural = factual when they could be myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies?

I would not conflate science with pseudoscience. Over time science has been shown to be self correcting by an inherent skepticism, and search for new knowledge. It is the scientists that discovered fraud like the Piltdown man, and yes over the years other frauds have been uncovered by scientist. More recently a sensational dinosaur bird fossil from China was sold to the Smithsonian, and it took a year or two, but it was not consistent with the objective evidence discovered before and after the Smithsonian received the fossil. Natural should not be considered equivalent to factual. Facts are individual objective pieces of information, and science is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and knowledge changes and evolves over time. Myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies are not falsifiable by objective evidence.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
They did not use the words, but contrary to the OP, they did know the concepts behind the words.

Need more clarification when it comes to what ancient cultures believed. Science in these cultures like the Egyptians were practical engineering concerns and not a search for the actual cause and effect relationship of the nature of our physical existence of natural sciences. They pretty much believed in the myths and legends of their culture the same way the Hebrews did and believed natural events such as disasters were Divinely caused events, and appealed to God(s) for favor with such things as sacrifices.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The word secular is Christian Latin and refers to affairs of this world as opposed to affairs of the church. It branches from the Greek 'Aion' and refers to the world as we see it as opposed the world as it ought to be. It points back to the prayer "Thy kingdom come thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven." This is the difference between the secular and the heavenly. There is a divide between how things are now and how they will be someday. Thus you have the secular, the immediate and you have opposite from that the heavenly and that which is sought after.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
They don't have words for gamete, democracy, penguin, or fiction either.
All I draw from this is that it was a primitive language used by a primitive people in a primitive culture.

So what? Am I supposed to assume that they knew more about God or Creation or something as a result?
Tom

I assume you're referring to the Bible and its authors. Yes, the author is the Big Guy, so assume you're getting it straight from the source although others may have written down what he said.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
I would not conflate science with pseudoscience. Over time science has been shown to be self correcting by an inherent skepticism, and search for new knowledge. It is the scientists that discovered fraud like the Piltdown man, and yes over the years other frauds have been uncovered by scientist. More recently a sensational dinosaur bird fossil from China was sold to the Smithsonian, and it took a year or two, but it was not consistent with the objective evidence discovered before and after the Smithsonian received the fossil. Natural should not be considered equivalent to factual. Facts are individual objective pieces of information, and science is based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis, and knowledge changes and evolves over time. Myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies are not falsifiable by objective evidence.

>>I would not conflate science with pseudoscience.<<

We disagree here on what science actually is then. For example, Degrasse is wrong in his meme. Atheists are usually wrong.

th


The truth is science isn't true whether you believe it or not. That's why scientific hypothesis and theory becomes pseudoscience. For example, science is defined as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." If the latter is not available through the scientific method, then we have h&t and scientific arguments over which h&t is better and what one believes. It's the search for the truth and knowledge and usually there is disagreement. For example, we had string theory. It became a theory because many scientists agreed with the calculations and thought it was the most plausible hypothesis. However, after research those who worked on it started dropping out. Those who stayed with it wasted most of their science careers. They lost their bet. Eventually, the theory wasn't accepted anymore by the majority. Don't believe people like Degrasse. He is just presenting one-side of the argument and is biased.

>>Over time science has been shown to be self correcting by an inherent skepticism, and search for new knowledge.<<

I agree with this, but it's not like what scientists did over time wasn't science. It was that the best theory may not have worked out, so a new theory takes it's place. We went from string theory to superstring theory to M-theory. Several creation scientists didn't get aboard the string theory bandwagon when it became hot in the 90s. They just let those who thought this was it work on it. Today, they have jumped aboard the M-theory bandwagon as it is hot. These scientists have found new knowledge, but do not have a theory to explain it best yet. Just my opinion on that. They may have made breakthroughs which I am not aware of. I don't think it's not like it was with gravitational waves were finally validated. That said, I think gravitational waves even had a false reading. I wouldn't say the people who got the false reading weren't doing science.

>>Natural should not be considered equivalent to factual. Facts are individual objective pieces of information.<<

Thank you, you're beautiful.

>>More recently a sensational dinosaur bird fossil from China was sold to the Smithsonian, and it took a year or two, but it was not consistent with the objective evidence discovered before and after the Smithsonian received the fossil.<<

Missed this one. The creation scientists say, "While there is no evidence rejecting the idea that there could have been feathered dinosaurs, there is also no evidence proving, without doubt, that there were. There is evidence that in at least some cases these so-called feathered dinosaurs are really misidentified birds. Also, most of these fossils are from China, of which they are known to have a fake fossil industry. This places a question mark on all such finds. While some evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are ancestors to our modern day birds, there is no evidence to prove it, but all the evidence against it."

Unfortunately, their opinions are not listened to in mainstream science nor are their statements peer-reviewed because the atheist scientists say they do not peer-review the supernatural. I'm not sure what the supernatural has to do with this. It's just subjective bias.

>>Myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies are not falsifiable by objective evidence.<<

I suppose we disagree here. I don't think falsifiability is that big of a deal. I do agree that falsiability is good to find, but we do not explore in science trying to falsify something. We do not go looking for the black swan when all swans are white. It's only when someone discovers a black swan by chance that the original theory isn't valid anymore. Scientists should be able to explore things before they propose a theory. They are allowed to write books on what they think, especially if they have had success in the past, have expert knowledge in a field or have elegant mathematical calculations. Who cares if it is falsifiable or not? Then you mention the dreaded objective evidence that atheist scientists like to trot out. That shouldn't be the point to the search for the truth. The search should be for the cause. Christian Sir Francis Bacon said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
The word secular is Christian Latin and refers to affairs of this world as opposed to affairs of the church. It branches from the Greek 'Aion' and refers to the world as we see it as opposed the world as it ought to be. It points back to the prayer "Thy kingdom come thy will be done in Earth as it is in Heaven." This is the difference between the secular and the heavenly. There is a divide between how things are now and how they will be someday. Thus you have the secular, the immediate and you have opposite from that the heavenly and that which is sought after.

I don't use the secular scientist term per the Christian Latin. I use the "atheist" scientist term per conservapedia ha ha.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
>>I would not conflate science with pseudoscience.<<

We disagree here on what science actually is then. For example, Degrasse is wrong in his meme. Atheists are usually wrong.

th


The truth is science isn't true whether you believe it or not.
A quote from of a TV celebrity does not define the nature of knowledge of science. Nonetheless 'True' here is not in reference to 'absolute truth' some claim in religions.

That's why scientific hypothesis and theory becomes pseudoscience.

As described above the selective quote from a celebrity does not define what represents the knowledge of science. Your religious bias against science is reflected in your misuse of selective citations, and not an understanding of the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism.

For example, science is defined as "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." If the latter is not available through the scientific method, then we have h&t and scientific arguments over which h&t is better and what one believes. It's the search for the truth and knowledge and usually there is disagreement. For example, we had string theory. It became a theory because many scientists agreed with the calculations and thought it was the most plausible hypothesis. However, after research those who worked on it started dropping out. Those who stayed with it wasted most of their science careers. They lost their bet. Eventually, the theory wasn't accepted anymore by the majority. Don't believe people like Degrasse. He is just presenting one-side of the argument and is biased.

Careful on how you define 'general truths,' and this is not how science defines the knowledge of science. Your including your own 'editorial comments' here to define science, and that will only take down Alice's rabbit hole.

A selective citation of the opinion of Degrasse does not represent anything close to what science is and what is the nature of Methodological Naturalism.

>>Over time science has been shown to be self correcting by an inherent skepticism, and search for new knowledge.<<

I agree with this, but it's not like what scientists did over time wasn't science. It was that the best theory may not have worked out, so a new theory takes it's place. We went from string theory to superstring theory to M-theory. Several creation scientists didn't get aboard the string theory bandwagon when it became hot in the 90s. They just let those who thought this was it work on it. Today, they have jumped aboard the M-theory bandwagon as it is hot. These scientists have found new knowledge, but do not have a theory to explain it best yet. Just my opinion on that. They may have made breakthroughs which I am not aware of. I don't think it's not like it was with gravitational waves were finally validated. That said, I think gravitational waves even had a false reading. I wouldn't say the people who got the false reading weren't doing science.

Your response here is confusing and not meaningful, Your opinion of 'I think' concerning gravitational waves. is absolute ridiculous statement from someone with no qualifications to make such a statement. What science does is what science does results in many alternative theories that are eventually falsified with the ones not making the grade of falsification by scientific methods are discarded or changed to fit the evidence.

The only thing you have demonstrated here is theoretical physics is the cutting edge of new theories where there are a number of possible theories for the nature of our physical existence and of course this is unresolved.

>>Natural should not be considered equivalent to factual. Facts are individual objective pieces of information.<<

Thank you, you're beautiful.

Based on your previous responses this response is problematic and decidedly sarcastic toward science.

>>More recently a sensational dinosaur bird fossil from China was sold to the Smithsonian, and it took a year or two, but it was not consistent with the objective evidence discovered before and after the Smithsonian received the fossil.<<

Missed this one. The creation scientists say, "While there is no evidence rejecting the idea that there could have been feathered dinosaurs, there is also no evidence proving, without doubt, that there were. There is evidence that in at least some cases these so-called feathered dinosaurs are really misidentified birds. Also, most of these fossils are from China, of which they are known to have a fake fossil industry. This places a question mark on all such finds. While some evolutionists believe that dinosaurs are ancestors to our modern day birds, there is no evidence to prove it, but all the evidence against it."

What Creationist Scientists say has no relevance to this nor any other aspect of all the geologic evidence concerning the nature of the the evolution of life. The controversy of the fossil was not over the issue of feathers, but the evolution of anatomy, which has been resolved with many fossils of these dinosaurs from all over the world. Inconsistency if this fossil eventually found it fraudulant as with the bogus Piltdown man.

Unfortunately, their opinions are not listened to in mainstream science nor are their statements peer-reviewed because the atheist scientists say they do not peer-review the supernatural. I'm not sure what the supernatural has to do with this. It's just subjective bias.

Let's back off from this bogus 'red herring' atheist scientists, because science is not atheist, nor do atheists determine the knowledge of science. Methodological Naturalism does not deal with the supernatural, because it is not falsifiable by objective evidence regardless of the religious belief of the scientists.

The bold above reflects a problem of the difference of your understanding between the 'objective' and the 'subjective.' Science is based on the the 'objective' evidence outside the mind, and the 'subjective' is based on religious beliefs of the mind only without objective evidence outside the mind.


>>Myths, legends, pseudoscience and lies are not falsifiable by objective evidence.<<

I suppose we disagree here. I don't think falsifiability is that big of a deal. I do agree that falsiability is good to find, but we do not explore in science trying to falsify something. We do not go looking for the black swan when all swans are white. It's only when someone discovers a black swan by chance that the original theory isn't valid anymore. Scientists should be able to explore things before they propose a theory. They are allowed to write books on what they think, especially if they have had success in the past, have expert knowledge in a field or have elegant mathematical calculations. Who cares if it is falsifiable or not? Then you mention the dreaded objective evidence that atheist scientists like to trot out. That shouldn't be the point to the search for the truth. The search should be for the cause. Christian Sir Francis Bacon said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."

The philosophy of falsifiability is the foundation of Methodological Naturalism. By rejecting this with a 'wave of the hand' reflects your fundamental rejection of science based on a religious agenda, which you believe is true regardless of the objective evidence.

Your bias of 'atheist scientists' rears its ugly rotting head again, and science is not atheist. It is represented by scientist os every possible religious belief on the face of the earth. Your claim that science has a an atheist agenda is an a paranoid (one too many noids) misguide view that science is covertly atheist.

Yes; "True knowledge is knowledge by causes.", but of course the objective physical evidence of 'cause and effect' in the nature of our physical existence remains grounded in the Methodological Naturalism of science, and NOT any one religious belief nor non-belief.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
A quote from of a TV celebrity does not define the nature of knowledge of science. Nonetheless 'True' here is not in reference to 'absolute truth' some claim in religions.



As described above the selective quote from a celebrity does not define what represents the knowledge of science. Your religious bias against science is reflected in your misuse of selective citations, and not an understanding of the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism.



Careful on how you define 'general truths,' and this is not how science defines the knowledge of science. Your including your own 'editorial comments' here to define science, and that will only take down Alice's rabbit hole.

A selective citation of the opinion of Degrasse does not represent anything close to what science is and what is the nature of Methodological Naturalism.

>>Over time science has been shown to be self correcting by an inherent skepticism, and search for new knowledge.<<



Your response here is confusing and not meaningful, Your opinion of 'I think' concerning gravitational waves. is absolute ridiculous statement from someone with no qualifications to make such a statement. What science does is what science does results in many alternative theories that are eventually falsified with the ones not making the grade of falsification by scientific methods are discarded or changed to fit the evidence.

The only thing you have demonstrated here is theoretical physics is the cutting edge of new theories where there are a number of possible theories for the nature of our physical existence and of course this is unresolved.

>>Natural should not be considered equivalent to factual. Facts are individual objective pieces of information.<<



Based on your previous responses this response is problematic and decidedly sarcastic toward science.

I'm not sure what you mean since you don't like a quote from a celebrity. I think you acknowledge that he is wrong. But, I do not agree to your train of thought when you say,

>>Your religious bias against science is reflected in your misuse of selective citations, and not an understanding of the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism.<<

My bias is explaining creation science. It's going to be different from atheist science. It won't have evolutionary thinking in it which is bias, too. I may not believe in the BBT even thought it's an improvement from the SST. This is where we disagree. Also, do we disagree on the PoS? Yeah, we do. I'll believe in what GK Chesterton said in regards to PoS. He said, "Darwinism is an attack on thought itself." He was the first, if not one of the early ones, who thought atheist scientists were turning science into a philosophy. He thought the atheist scientists were becoming worshippers of science.

He continued, "This led inevitably to scientists making bizarre claims as to what natural processes alone could accomplish. ‘Things that the old science at least would frankly have rejected as miracles are hourly being asserted by the new science." That's hilarious. The atheists were the ones claiming miracles of macroevolution.

He said this around the 1920s. He may as well be describing today's non-believers, and you're doing the same here. I was referring to science and suddenly we are on PoS and Methodological Naturalism. GK said it very clear, materialism (or naturalism) "the philosophical view that only matter has any reality; non-material constitutents of human experience like love, meaning, compassion, etc. are not real. This includes the mind, thoughts, ideas and spiritual, higher beings. So save your breath. You can keep your Karl Popper PoS and naturalism.

I'm not following you when you next go into theoretical physics. And I agree with your definition of facts. I would add that facts can be used by everybody because they're facts. For example, 'our world is round.' What's not a fact is the statement 'evolution is fact.' I would agree to objective over subjective statements, too. But I may not agree to you using absolute or ultimate truth. The opposite of absolute is relative, so it's part of the search for knowledge and truth. In religion, I've heard the subjective, objective, absolute/ultimate and relative used for morality or the terms used for statements in criminal law. I would agree that objective truth is better than subjective ones and absolute truth better than relative ones. We better be in agreement on this.

I think I am becoming more clear on your PoS. Just because you believe it doesn't mean I have to follow the same philosophy. So, I'm not being sarcastic to science, but I'm being sarcastic to atheist science just like my Christian compadre, GK Chesterton.
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
I'm not sure what you mean since you don't like a quote from a celebrity. I think you acknowledge that he is wrong. But, I do not agree to your train of thought when you say,

Right or wrong, your train of thought is flawed when citing one 'sound-bite' from a TV celebrity as representing the view science toward what is true and knowledge in science.

>>Your religious bias against science is reflected in your misuse of selective citations, and not an understanding of the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism.<<

My bias is explaining creation science. It's going to be different from atheist science. It won't have evolutionary thinking in it which is bias, too. I may not believe in the BBT even thought it's an improvement from the SST. This is where we disagree. Also, do we disagree on the PoS? Yeah, we do. I'll believe in what GK Chesterton said in regards to PoS. He said, "Darwinism is an attack on thought itself." He was the first, if not one of the early ones, who thought atheist scientists were turning science into a philosophy. He thought the atheist scientists were becoming worshippers of science.

This may be an unresolvable problem of you conflating the atheist belief with science.

He continued, "This led inevitably to scientists making bizarre claims as to what natural processes alone could accomplish. ‘Things that the old science at least would frankly have rejected as miracles are hourly being asserted by the new science." That's hilarious. The atheists were the ones claiming miracles of macroevolution.

He said this around the 1920s. He may as well be describing today's non-believers, and you're doing the same here.

Your citing a very very questionable 1920's theologian living in the science Medieval Europe for an opinion of evolution not based on science. Lucretius, a first century Roman philosopher, had a better grasp on the nature of science than GK.

I was referring to science and suddenly we are on PoS and Methodological Naturalism.

The reason is simple, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of modern science

GK said it very clear, materialism (or naturalism) "the philosophical view that only matter has any reality; non-material constitutents of human experience like love, meaning, compassion, etc. are not real. This includes the mind, thoughts, ideas and spiritual, higher beings. So save your breath. You can keep your Karl Popper PoS and naturalism.

GK may be clear, but he is not remotely qualified, and totally biased toward literal Biblical Creationsim

I'm not following you when you next go into theoretical physics.

You are the one that brought up different theories in theoretical physics, and incompetent unqualifed opinions concerning gravitational waves.

And I agree with your definition of facts. I would add that facts can be used by everybody because they're facts. For example, 'our world is round.'

What's not a fact is the statement 'evolution is fact.'

Again, again, and again science does not describe evolution as a fact. It is too simplistic based on 'sound bite' layman's comments, and out of context. Evolution is a science based on the objective evidence of our physical existence.

I would agree to objective over subjective statements, too. But I may not agree to you using absolute or ultimate truth. The opposite of absolute is relative, so it's part of the search for knowledge and truth. In religion, I've heard the subjective, objective, absolute/ultimate and relative used for morality or the terms used for statements in criminal law. I would agree that objective truth is better than subjective ones and absolute truth better than relative ones. We better be in agreement on this.

Bottom line is science is not based on a vague concept of objective truth, because it is based on the objective evidence of our physical existence. Absolute truth is an unreasonable idealistic concept from the fallible human perspective.

I think I am becoming more clear on your PoS. Just because you believe it doesn't mean I have to follow the same philosophy.

I support the Methodological Naturalism and the related PoS, because it works in describing the physical nature of our universe, and all our technology is based on the same science as the science of evolution.

So, I'm not being sarcastic to science, but I'm being sarcastic to atheist science just like my Christian compadre, GK Chesterton.

Again, you are unfortunately conflating science with atheism, and citing an incompetent ancient moldy unqualified source as your compadre (?).
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
Right or wrong, your train of thought is flawed when citing one 'sound-bite' from a TV celebrity as representing the view science toward what is true and knowledge in science.

>>Your religious bias against science is reflected in your misuse of selective citations, and not an understanding of the philosophy of science and Methodological Naturalism.<<

Your citing a very very questionable 1920's theologian living in the science Medieval Europe for an opinion of evolution not based on science. Lucretius, a first century Roman philosopher, had a better grasp on the nature of science than GK.



The reason is simple, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of modern science



GK may be clear, but he is not remotely qualified, and totally biased toward literal Biblical Creationsim



You are the one that brought up different theories in theoretical physics, and incompetent unqualifed opinions concerning gravitational waves.





Again, again, and again science does not describe evolution as a fact. It is too simplistic based on 'sound bite' layman's comments, and out of context. Evolution is a science based on the objective evidence of our physical existence.



Bottom line is science is not based on a vague concept of objective truth, because it is based on the objective evidence of our physical existence. Absolute truth is an unreasonable idealistic concept from the fallible human perspective.


I support the Methodological Naturalism and the related PoS, because it works in describing the physical nature of our universe, and all our technology is based on the same science as the science of evolution.



Again, you are unfortunately conflating science with atheism, and citing an incompetent ancient moldy unqualified source as your compadre (?).

My use of the Degrasse quote comes from those who believe science is fact and the objective solution or the objective truth. What Degrasse said seems to fit you. Meh. Science is nothing of the kind. Yesterday, I read about how science is supposed to bring you back from the dead (Even started another thread about it). That's impossible. It's not even objective. Does that science fit what you know as 'true and knowledge science?' Rich people are paying up to $150,000 for it. You are surprisingly lack in examples of what you believe. Yet, I have been providing examples throughout our discussion.

Next, it wasn't until the 18th and 19th centuries, that we distinguished the job of scientist and philosopher. It is a fact that many of the great scientist-philosophers of antiquity were also theologians. Modern science was created by the Christians. OTOH, the history of materialism first started in 1800s by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. Are you a communist and atheist, sir? If not, you will be mixing your politics in the guise of science with PoS and MN.

Why is my theologian, CK, questionable when all of your statements haven't been backed by any other sources? He is a valid source of philosopher of science. He may not be up there with the top ones, but he influenced CS Lewis, an atheist, who became a Christian and ended up being a great philosopher in his own right. If we look at medieval Europe, we find the top ones were medieval Christian ones. Just who are you referring to there and what did they propose?

5: Medieval Philosophy

Ah, finally a name -- Lucretius, a 1st century philosopher. What did he say and how does he back up you beliefs?

>>The reason is simple, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of modern science<<

This is such a subjective statement and isn't backed up by anything. It's just your opinion. Why not explain MN, so we all know what it is and why you believe it as above in your "wrong" statement.

Oh, so that's where you're getting theoretical physics from. Okay. Well, the gravitational waves were confirmed in 2016. I'll save my "incompetent" reply until the end.

Again, as I have stated til I am blue in the face is that we're not going to agree on the science and the methods and the PoS and materialism vs spiritualism. It seems you are biased the opposite side and not being objective here. If I say that I am on one side and that that we have a serious disagreement, then that is an objective statement. What you claim is highly subjective. It's almost hypocritical.

I wouldn't say evolution is science when the evidence you present is evidence found to back up one's theory called ToE. It's largely based on circular reasoning. Instead the creation scientists have presented objective evidence of how species change through natural selection, but not through major DNA changes of macroevolution into a completely different animal or plant. This is a miracle that CK was referring to. It's a physical miracle that does not happen except in the minds of evo scientists and yourself. The physical evidence actually contradicts it, but evo scientists can't accept it, reply to it and end up in denial. Instead, they developed a highly judgmental and subjective category of supernatural and disavow any theories that deal with it.

As for your comments on evolution and gravitational waves judging me incompetent, I know more about both of these subjects it than you. I can prove it here in front of all these people. You will be reduced to extremely smelly doo doo http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/****/pooper-scooper.gif . So bring on the objective evidence -- provide at least two examples of MN as the foundation of modern science -- or else just admit you're just full of the doo doo. I'll be glad to teach you an evolution, gravitational wave, history, PoS or materialism lesson.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
My use of the Degrasse quote comes from those who believe science is fact and the objective solution or the objective truth. What Degrasse said seems to fit you. Meh. Science is nothing of the kind. Yesterday, I read about how science is supposed to bring you back from the dead (Even started another thread about it). That's impossible. It's not even objective. Does that science fit what you know as 'true and knowledge science?' Rich people are paying up to $150,000 for it. You are surprisingly lack in examples of what you believe. Yet, I have been providing examples throughout our discussion.

Next, it wasn't until the 18th and 19th centuries, that we distinguished the job of scientist and philosopher. It is a fact that many of the great scientist-philosophers of antiquity were also theologians. Modern science was created by the Christians. OTOH, the history of materialism first started in 1800s by Karl Marx in his Communist Manifesto. Are you a communist and atheist, sir? If not, you will be mixing your politics in the guise of science with PoS and MN.

Why is my theologian, CK, questionable when all of your statements haven't been backed by any other sources? He is a valid source of philosopher of science. He may not be up there with the top ones, but he influenced CS Lewis, an atheist, who became a Christian and ended up being a great philosopher in his own right. If we look at medieval Europe, we find the top ones were medieval Christian ones. Just who are you referring to there and what did they propose?

5: Medieval Philosophy

Ah, finally a name -- Lucretius, a 1st century philosopher. What did he say and how does he back up you beliefs?

>>The reason is simple, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of modern science<<

This is such a subjective statement and isn't backed up by anything. It's just your opinion. Why not explain MN, so we all know what it is and why you believe it as above in your "wrong" statement.

Oh, so that's where you're getting theoretical physics from. Okay. Well, the gravitational waves were confirmed in 2016. I'll save my "incompetent" reply until the end.

Again, as I have stated til I am blue in the face is that we're not going to agree on the science and the methods and the PoS and materialism vs spiritualism. It seems you are biased the opposite side and not being objective here. If I say that I am on one side and that that we have a serious disagreement, then that is an objective statement. What you claim is highly subjective. It's almost hypocritical.

I wouldn't say evolution is science when the evidence you present is evidence found to back up one's theory called ToE. It's largely based on circular reasoning. Instead the creation scientists have presented objective evidence of how species change through natural selection, but not through major DNA changes of macroevolution into a completely different animal or plant. This is a miracle that CK was referring to. It's a physical miracle that does not happen except in the minds of evo scientists and yourself. The physical evidence actually contradicts it, but evo scientists can't accept it, reply to it and end up in denial. Instead, they developed a highly judgmental and subjective category of supernatural and disavow any theories that deal with it.

As for your comments on evolution and gravitational waves judging me incompetent, I know more about both of these subjects it than you. I can prove it here in front of all these people. You will be reduced to extremely smelly doo doo http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/****/pooper-scooper.gif . So bring on the objective evidence -- provide at least two examples of MN as the foundation of modern science -- or else just admit you're just full of the doo doo. I'll be glad to teach you an evolution, gravitational wave, history, PoS or materialism lesson.

. . . and Napoleon won the Battle of Waterloo, and chickens bark at the full moon.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why is my theologian, CK, questionable when
Ah, finally a name -- Lucretius, a 1st century philosopher. What did he say and how does he back up you beliefs?

The point is Lucretius was more accurate as to the nature of our physical existence than CK. No, CK did not have any legitimate academic scientific source for his Creationist beliefs. The only source I can see is the literal interpretation of the Bible.

>>The reason is simple, Methodological Naturalism is the foundation of modern science<<

As for your comments on evolution and gravitational waves judging me incompetent, I know more about both of these subjects it than you. I can prove it here in front of all these people. You will be reduced to extremely smelly doo doo http://www.sherv.net/cm/emoticons/****/pooper-scooper.gif . So bring on the objective evidence -- provide at least two examples of MN as the foundation of modern science -- or else just admit you're just full of the doo doo. I'll be glad to teach you an evolution, gravitational wave, history, PoS or materialism lesson.

Since you consider science pseudoscience and reject falsification through Methodological Naturalism I find it virtually impossible for you to have any remote comprehension of theoretical physics and gravitational waves, which are concepts based on the falsification of theories and hypothesis through Methodological Naturalism.
 
Top