The limitation of both science and religion due to biology.

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely NO.
Science, Methodological Naturalism and I do not claim to 'know.'

Nor do I "know". I believe and it appears to work.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nor do I "know". I believe and it appears to work.

Not an adequate response to your misrepresentation of Karl Popper and I.

'Appears to work?' Too vague.

Go back in your Plato's cave.

To add; I believe your misrepresenting Descartes philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not an adequate response to your misrepresentation of Karl Popper and I.

'Appears to work?' Too vague.

Go back in your Plato's cave.

Like that you don't like vague. It has to be vague or it is absolute. So take a stance: Vague or absolute!
Either it is how it appears or it is known!

 

[shunyadragon]

Like that you don't like vague. It has to be vague or it is absolute. So take a stance: Vague or absolute!
Either it is how it appears or it is known!

Karl Popper nor I accept either vague nor absolute, but apparently you believe it is a necessary choice. We acknowledge the human limits of understanding and comprehension, and go with the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on the 'objective verifiable evidence.' the knowledge of science evolves and changes over time, because we do not 'know' nor prove anything.'

I believe you have failed to respond and resorting to oneliners.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Karl Popper nor I accept either vague nor absolute, but apparently you believe it is a necessary choice. We acknowledge the human limits of understanding and comprehension, and go with the falsification of theories and hypothesis based on the 'objective verifiable evidence.' the knowledge of science evolves and changes over time, because we do not 'know' nor prove anything.'

I believe you have failed to respond and resorting to oneliners.

Let me explain how methodological naturalism requires humans. It is a method and a method requires a human as it is a relation between cognition(the method) and 'objective verifiable evidence'. But the assumption in the method is that 'objective verifiable evidence' is about the world as such and that is what can't be proven as absolute.
And now I will show how science must evolve over time. We can't find what appears to be constants and treat them as such. Because it always changes and evolves. And there are no apparent constants in nature and everything is in flux.

So since everything changes you can't treat Popper as the end, because it will change. The knowledge of science evolves and changes over time and so will Popper. You are behind the times. Now change.

 

[shunyadragon]

Let me explain how methodological naturalism requires humans. It is a method and a method requires a human as it is a relation between cognition(the method) and 'objective verifiable evidence'. But the assumption in the method is that 'objective verifiable evidence' is about the world as such and that is what can't be proven as absolute.

Problem is you either do not understand how Methodological Naturalism works or requires, or you are distorting it to justify your agenda. Bold is true

And now I will show how science must evolve over time.

True, but not for the reasons you give.

We can't find what appears to be constants and treat them as such. Because it always changes and evolves. And there are no apparent constants in nature and everything is in flux.

We can determine the constants as valid and falsifiable as applicable to understanding our physical existence. Everything is not in flux, and this is a truly foolish notion. You are appealing to false extremes.

So since everything changes you can't treat Popper as the end, because it will change. The knowledge of science evolves and changes over time and so will Popper. You are behind the times. Now change.

Yes, the knowledge of science will evolve and change, but only by degrees. No, everything does not change, which is another foolish notion that could conclude computers function today and airplanes, and may all fail tomorrow.

Incorrect, and you are describing an extreme view of science and Methodological Naturalism knowledge as vague which is not true. You obviously do not understand what is change in science, or you are deliberately presenting a confused extreme description to justify your agenda.

Let's get back to reality and not foolish extremes which have no meaning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

Let's get back to reality and not foolish extremes which have no meaning.

Correct. Now only as through observation and science in this thread as per above do meaning. You are not allowed to do anything subjective unless it is directly connected to science and can be done as valid with science. You can't! That is the limit of the physical word and existence. You demand a meaning, which is not science.

 

[shunyadragon]

Correct. Now only as through observation and science in this thread as per above do meaning. You are not allowed to do anything subjective unless it is directly connected to science and can be done as valid with science. You can't! That is the limit of the physical word and existence. You demand a meaning, which is not science.

Do anything??? Not a coherent response. The proposal of a falsifiable hypothesis would be based on 'objective verifiable evidence only.' No subjective claims 'are allowed' without evidence and would not support a hypothesis.

Again as cited I believe you are misrepresenting Descartes.

 

[rational experiences]

The human Designer God self ideal is inventor designer of his own science thesis as the thinker. Never owned any of the natural massed bodies or their natural histories in space.

Designed and thought only for a human in consciousness. Why he infers self to being a God scientist human inventor Designer, as a male man self theme...and owned a thesis just for a formula for a design for his machine and built it, owned building it and controlled its activity.

How is any of the information relative to the O one mass natural planet body or heavenly gases that he thinks upon first, to then be the Designer in person?

So in his past natural male human his life mind and body was very high spiritually and self aware as compared to his irradiated inherited life/mind and body today.

Yet memory, recorded atmospherically which is his claim to SPIRIT...seeing everyone in the past in science is deceased...and owned recorded man/male records as a human. His mind/psyche says, man the inventor designer is in spirit.

And makes the observations first naturally and consciously and subliminally without any questions or thesis. The information is natural, he is naturally informed, and it is termed natural human awareness. And we all own the use of its knowledge.

Yet if you do not study conscious human spiritual aspects, as a researcher like I did...you would not even science realise what I was trying to advise you, just as an observer.

The fact that your own human science Designs was thought by the human male self mind observer and whatever he theories a long time ago was from his spiritual male human self status. Nothing like you are today. So of course in your minds you were God like as the first Designer, but no one would even be aware of what you knew, why you knew it, or how you formed the first science thesis for your designs.

For the Earth sure did not own science, or invention or your formulas or your designs human thought, theories and applies by human choices.

Why the no man is God theme...was an already recorded human male past life informed status. It owned a detailed researched study....and if you try to quote one of passages, when the total summation quoted....never change the Earth body as the status STone and One and God...then you did.

But still today are humans quoting...I know what they are talking about, when all it owns is non stop arguments. You do not know what they are discussing, for it was a researched thought upon study in the conditions...natural life, natural life that had been sacrificed and irradiated. Thinking in an irradiated cause and effect life mind and body is not something you want to copy.

If you owned and used a rational thinking mind today.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do anything??? Not a coherent response. The proposal of a falsifiable hypothesis would be based on 'objective verifiable evidence only.' No subjective claims 'are allowed' without evidence and would not support a hypothesis.

Again you can't give for evidence for the fact that no subjective claims 'are allowed' without evidence.
In fact 'are allowed' is subjective. You can observe subjectivity in my answers and you use it yourself. It exists just like gravity. It is just you who subjectively deny that it is relevant because of subjective reasons in you.

Again as cited I believe you are misrepresenting Descartes.

Maybe. As I recall, Descartes solved the problem of the evil demon by claiming God wouldn't allow it. Yes, he believed in objective reality, but he didn't solve the problem of proof of objective reality.

 

[Native]

I like Joseph Campbell, who is able make this differentiation between science and our relationship with our human heritage in the stories and myths of our ancestors.

Joseph Campbell´s differention between science and the mythical heritage is based on the Carl Gustav Jung´s ideas which he didn´t connect to the mythical creation stories. Jung was speaking of a "collective knowledge and archetypes" without making the logical connection to the very creation itself. - just like you do too.

mikkel_the_dane said: ↑
So you are philosophical/metaphysical physicalist. Good, that you showed your true color. Now can we forget methodological naturalism and get to the meat of. How do you know that?

Absolutely NO.
Science, Methodological Naturalism and I do not claim to 'know.' That is one of the foundation principles of Karl Popper's philosophy.

Still you claim to KNOW that Myths of Creation has nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. Is everything just a theory to you, even your own arguments?

You have failed to present any evidential line of thinking that would justify 'our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths' other than subjective and anecdotal symbolic comparisons.

As you claim to KNOW of the cultural Creation Myths, I was expecting you to come to the logical conclusion yourself, but this is obviously in vain..

 

[Native]

Everything is not in flux, and this is a truly foolish notion.

So the term "evolution" means nothing to you?

BTW: You could have concluded the general and eternal "cosmic flux" yourself from reading and especially UNDERSTANDING the cultural Myths of Creation

 

[shunyadragon]

Joseph Campbell´s differention between science and the mythical heritage is based on the Carl Gustav Jung´s ideas which he didn´t connect to the mythical creation stories. Jung was speaking of a "collective knowledge and archetypes" without making the logical connection to the very creation itself. - just like you do too.

I go with Joseph Campbell. I do not consider there is any relationship with Carl Jung. Not a fan of Carl for other reasons.

mikkel_the_dane said: ↑
So you are philosophical/metaphysical physicalist. Good, that you showed your true color. Now can we forget methodological naturalism and get to the meat of. How do you know that?

No we cannot forget Methodological Naturalism. because it is the objective' foundation of science and I am a scientist. I am not metaphysical naturalist, because that would assume that nothing exists beyond our physical existence as in the atheist belief system.

Not related to our discussion. @mikkel_the_dane was referring to his support of Kant vs my support for Karl Popper concerning objective vs subjective in science and metaphysics.

Still you claim to KNOW that Myths of Creation has nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. Is everything just a theory to you, even your own arguments?

As you claim to KNOW of the cultural Creation Myths, I was expecting you to come to the logical conclusion yourself, but this is obviously in vain..

'Know' is more the arrogant view hold. it is not logic that is the issue. There is absolutely no evidence that ancient creation myths describe the physical origins and history of our universe.

You have failed to present any evidential line of thinking that would justify 'our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths' other than subjective and anecdotal symbolic comparisons.

 

[shunyadragon]

So the term "evolution" means nothing to you?

BTW: You could have concluded the general and eternal "cosmic flux" yourself from reading and especially UNDERSTANDING the cultural Myths of Creation

Unless you are an advocate of Kant's philosophy concerning metaphysics and science this is not related to our discussion. Everything being in flux from @mikkel_the_dane's perspective refers to the unpredictability of the objectivity of the ability of science ot be consistent and predictable in falsification of hypothesis and theories, which is a bogus argument.

Evolution is a natural process of change over time and consistent and predictable with the falsification of hypothesis based on 'objective verifiable physical evidence. The foundation of Methodological Naturalism. There is absolutely no evidence that the natural laws and natural processes of our physical existence have ever been in "cosmic flux" or any different than they are today. If you believe so provide the evidence.

 

[Native]

I go with Joseph Campbell. I do not consider there is any relationship with Carl Jung. Not a fan of Carl for other reasons.

Oh yes there is. Several supporters of JC works with the ideas of Carl Gustav Jung and even Joseph Campbell himself discuss the CGJ ideas on Youtube:

All dealing with the personal issues and NOT connected to the general cosmic collective, which is described in numerous cultural Myths of Creation.

Both Joseph Campbell and Carl Gustav Jung were disconnected from the ancient Myths of Creation - just like yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

Oh yes there is. Several supporters of JC works with the ideas of Carl Gustav Jung and even Joseph Campbell himself discuss the CGJ ideas on Youtube:

All dealing with the personal issues and NOT connected to the general cosmic collective, which is described in numerous cultural Myths of Creation.

Both Joseph Campbell and Carl Gustav Jung were disconnected from the ancient Myths of Creation - just like yourself.

OK, but there are other reasons I object to Jung, but yes I support Joseph Campbell's view. It is more contemporary and objective.

 

[Native]

Everything being in flux from @mikkel_the_dane's perspective refers to the unpredictability of the objectivity of the ability of science ot be consistent and predictable in falsification of hypothesis and theories, which is a bogus argument.

You´re taking Mikkel´s argument as a bogus because you´re believing in the linear thinking in modern cosmiogical science.

And now I will show how science must evolve over time. We can't find what appears to be constants and treat them as such. Because it always changes and evolves. And there are no apparent constants in nature and everything is in flux.

Up against your and the scientific linear thinking stands the knowledge of ancient Myths of Creation which states everything to be a cyclical formation and therefore forever changing - and this also goes for the very ideas of "scientific constants".

The only constant is that everything is not constant.

 

[Native]

OK, but there are other reasons I object to Jung, but yes I support Joseph Campbell's view. It is more contemporary and objective.

It is NOT objective as long as his ideas aren´t connected to the greater and collective realms in Myths of Creation. JC works primarily on the personal stages and as such, it´s mostly subjective.

Besides this, a "contemporary interpretation" of ancient myths is a contradiction in terms.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again you can't give for evidence for the fact that no subjective claims 'are allowed' without evidence.

Evidence? You do not accept objective evidence in the first place. The fact that 'no subjective claims 'are allowed without evidence is the standards of ALL peer reviewed academic scientific publications of the world.

In fact 'are allowed' is subjective. You can observe subjectivity in my answers and you use it yourself. It exists just like gravity. It is just you who subjectively deny that it is relevant because of subjective reasons in you.

Yes your answers are subjective, personal anecdotal, and foggy and would not qualify as remotely objective and not accepted in science, and based on the oldy moldy Kant Philosophy..

Maybe. As I recall, Descartes solved the problem of the evil demon by claiming God wouldn't allow it.

True, but claims are not the resolution.

Yes, he believed in objective reality, but he didn't solve the problem of proof of objective reality.

True, that is why Karl Popper, like Descartes, did not propose a 'proof' of objective reality. and actually to a degree Karl Popper's philosophy can be traced to Descartes.

 

[shunyadragon]

You´re taking Mikkel´s argument as a bogus because you´re believing in the linear thinking in modern cosmiogical science.

No not linear, just natural, predictable and consistent based on the evidence. The problem is you have consistently failed to provide evidence for your assertions.

Up against your and the scientific linear thinking stands the knowledge of ancient Myths of Creation which states everything to be a cyclical formation and therefore forever changing - and this also goes for the very ideas of "scientific constants".

Science is not linear thinkin, and forever changing. There is absolutely no evidence that the scientific constants of our universe are changing. Please cit the evidence, but as usual al you make is assertions and roal pronouncements with evidence.

The only constant is that everything is not constant.

Assertion needs support and explanation.


Still no response: You have failed to present any evidential line of thinking that would justify 'our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths' other than subjective and anecdotal symbolic comparisons.