Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

Please be clear: what does "nature's science" have to do with God or religion, in your opinion? Your text seems to me to stop just short of saying "God did it", but I could be mistaken?

I would suggest that natures science is completely different to secular science.I would suggest that secular scientist only hope that they are practicing natures science.I would suggest that this is the wild hope of secularism especially when it has completely failed to incorporate consciousness into its theories simply because it is unable to because it resides within total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned.

If secularism did understand consciousness then it would understand the “toggling” nature of it which completely changes scientific theories to the point whereby accepted science needs to be completely redefined.

I would suggest that a secularist view of a God and Religion would be seriously challenged if consciousness and it’s interconnections with the other sciences was better understood.

[Pattern-chaser]

Please be clear: what does "nature's science" have to do with God or religion, in your opinion? Your text seems to me to stop just short of saying "God did it", but I could be mistaken?

I would suggest that natures science is completely different to secular science.I would suggest that secular scientist only hope that they are practicing natures science.I would suggest that this is the wild hope of secularism especially when it has completely failed to incorporate consciousness into its theories simply because it is unable to because it resides within total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned.

If secularism did understand consciousness then it would understand the “toggling” nature of it which completely changes scientific theories to the point whereby accepted science needs to be completely redefined.

I would suggest that a secularist view of a God and Religion would be seriously challenged if consciousness and it’s interconnections with the other sciences was better understood.

So my guess was right, then? I can't quite tell from your reply.

[Joshua10]

Sorry to be clear,I would suggest, as I have already suggested,sound philosophy is about possibilities and choices.I would suggest that this equally applies to God and Religion.

My point is that if secularist understood consciousness better then I would suggest that they would be in a better position to make a decision regarding God and Religion.

However,as secularist are not in a position to do this because they are stuck in unawareness whereby consciousness is concerned then I suppose they will just have to go with what they have.

[Pattern-chaser]

Sorry to be clear,I would suggest, as I have already suggested,sound philosophy is about possibilities and choices.I would suggest that this equally applies to God and Religion.

My point is that if secularist understood consciousness better then I would suggest that they would be in a better position to make a decision regarding God and Religion.

However,as secularist are not in a position to do this because they are stuck in unawareness whereby consciousness is concerned then I suppose they will just have to go with what they have.

But you aren't being clear. You are skirting around the question like a politician. Why not just say that a religious view is better than a secular one, and then tell us all how and why that is so, instead of merely slagging-off the opposition?

[Joshua10]

Sorry to be clear,I would suggest, as I have already suggested,sound philosophy is about possibilities and choices.I would suggest that this equally applies to God and Religion.

My point is that if secularist understood consciousness better then I would suggest that they would be in a better position to make a decision regarding God and Religion.

However,as secularist are not in a position to do this because they are stuck in unawareness whereby consciousness is concerned then I suppose they will just have to go with what they have.

But you aren't being clear. You are skirting around the question like a politician. Why not just say that a religious view is better than a secular one, and then tell us all how and why that is so, instead of merely slagging-off the opposition?

I am being totally clear,I have suggested secularism is completely in the dark whereby understanding consciousness is concerned.I would suggest that secularism would agree with this.Please explain why you think secularism has the authority on science when it is totally ignorant about consciousness? Doesn’t it deserve a challenge for being so arrogant? Are you saying that secularism isn’t arrogant on the consciousness issue? Please be clear.

[LuckyR]

We all "see what we want to see" including yourself. However trained minds are aware of confirmation bias and have devised methods to allow for confirmation bias. No genuine scientist is a fool. You have an eccentric idea which you are unable to explain.

You may possibly be too vain to make the slight effort to understand natural selection; however if you had the humility appropriate to a genuine seeker I'd like to explain it to you.

I have no eccentric ideas whatsoever.Natures scientific ideas I do have.I have said that I have no time for secular science for very good reasons.It makes no connection whatsoever across the sciences especially at the psychological level and I have given the reasons why.Secular scientists don’t have a clue about consciousness,if they did their science would be different but for now we have to put up with it.

I agree that no genuine scientist is a fool but the problem is that there ain’t many about.Natures science is about possibilities and choices.Sound philosophy reveals this.

It not about making ridiculous claims about a single Big Bang that cannot be substantiated other than it being substantiated later that it was foolish notion in the first place.

All animals mate and change within their kinds.This is how it is.

Sounds so interesting! Where can I go to learn about it from leaders in Nature's science? Conferences? Research labs? University programs?

I would suggest that secular science has got itself into a complete mess which was inevitable.It only has itself to blame.Natures science provides the answers.Natures science explains the psychological workings because it explains and incorporates consciousness.As I have already stated,secular science does not incorporate consciousness into its theories because it cannot due it residing in total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned, secular science being an unaware rather than aware science.

Did you even read my post's queries? Answer if you can. If you can't that speaks louder than your posts.

[Joshua10]

I have no eccentric ideas whatsoever.Natures scientific ideas I do have.I have said that I have no time for secular science for very good reasons.It makes no connection whatsoever across the sciences especially at the psychological level and I have given the reasons why.Secular scientists don’t have a clue about consciousness,if they did their science would be different but for now we have to put up with it.

I agree that no genuine scientist is a fool but the problem is that there ain’t many about.Natures science is about possibilities and choices.Sound philosophy reveals this.

It not about making ridiculous claims about a single Big Bang that cannot be substantiated other than it being substantiated later that it was foolish notion in the first place.

All animals mate and change within their kinds.This is how it is.

Sounds so interesting! Where can I go to learn about it from leaders in Nature's science? Conferences? Research labs? University programs?

I would suggest that secular science has got itself into a complete mess which was inevitable.It only has itself to blame.Natures science provides the answers.Natures science explains the psychological workings because it explains and incorporates consciousness.As I have already stated,secular science does not incorporate consciousness into its theories because it cannot due it residing in total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned, secular science being an unaware rather than aware science.

Did you even read my post's queries? Answer if you can. If you can't that speaks louder than your posts.

I would suggest that you may struggle to find anywhere that teaches about natures science.Secular science that doesn’t understand consciousness and basis all it scientific principles;logic and theories on that misunderstanding,yes.

[LuckyR]

Sounds so interesting! Where can I go to learn about it from leaders in Nature's science? Conferences? Research labs? University programs?

I would suggest that secular science has got itself into a complete mess which was inevitable.It only has itself to blame.Natures science provides the answers.Natures science explains the psychological workings because it explains and incorporates consciousness.As I have already stated,secular science does not incorporate consciousness into its theories because it cannot due it residing in total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned, secular science being an unaware rather than aware science.

Did you even read my post's queries? Answer if you can. If you can't that speaks louder than your posts.

I would suggest that you may struggle to find anywhere that teaches about natures science.Secular science that doesn’t understand consciousness and basis all it scientific principles;logic and theories on that misunderstanding,yes.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You can cite no leaders in Nature science, nor any work being done in Nature science? If so it sounds like your personal opinion or personal theory (pipedream sounds a bit dismissive). Okay. Got it.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that secular science has got itself into a complete mess which was inevitable.It only has itself to blame.Natures science provides the answers.Natures science explains the psychological workings because it explains and incorporates consciousness.As I have already stated,secular science does not incorporate consciousness into its theories because it cannot due it residing in total ignorance whereby consciousness is concerned, secular science being an unaware rather than aware science.

Did you even read my post's queries? Answer if you can. If you can't that speaks louder than your posts.

I would suggest that you may struggle to find anywhere that teaches about natures science.Secular science that doesn’t understand consciousness and basis all it scientific principles;logic and theories on that misunderstanding,yes.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You can cite no leaders in Nature science, nor any work being done in Nature science? If so it sounds like your personal opinion or personal theory (pipedream sounds a bit dismissive). Okay. Got it.

Dismiss it then.That’s your choice.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

I would also suggest that secular “spectator” science is unable to do the above because it doesn’t understand consciousness and the role it plays in science and is definitely not a team player across the sciences.

[Belindi]

Did you even read my post's queries? Answer if you can. If you can't that speaks louder than your posts.

I would suggest that you may struggle to find anywhere that teaches about natures science.Secular science that doesn’t understand consciousness and basis all it scientific principles;logic and theories on that misunderstanding,yes.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You can cite no leaders in Nature science, nor any work being done in Nature science? If so it sounds like your personal opinion or personal theory (pipedream sounds a bit dismissive). Okay. Got it.

Dismiss it then.That’s your choice.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

I would also suggest that secular “spectator” science is unable to do the above because it doesn’t understand consciousness and the role it plays in science and is definitely not a team player across the sciences.

All "players" may be mistaken. Even you may see a bit of withered leaf on the floor and think it a large insect. Even you may listen to someone's deluded idea and think it truth.

Even your best waking awareness after a good night's sleep may mislead you.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that you may struggle to find anywhere that teaches about natures science.Secular science that doesn’t understand consciousness and basis all it scientific principles;logic and theories on that misunderstanding,yes.

Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. You can cite no leaders in Nature science, nor any work being done in Nature science? If so it sounds like your personal opinion or personal theory (pipedream sounds a bit dismissive). Okay. Got it.

Dismiss it then.That’s your choice.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

I would also suggest that secular “spectator” science is unable to do the above because it doesn’t understand consciousness and the role it plays in science and is definitely not a team player across the sciences.

All "players" may be mistaken. Even you may see a bit of withered leaf on the floor and think it a large insect. Even you may listen to someone's deluded idea and think it truth.

Even your best waking awareness after a good night's sleep may mislead you.

You may be correct in HOPE.

I prefer “player” science or natures science because it allows and explains where consciousness fits in and answers all my queries and provides sound science to back it up.

We know, so I don’t need to suggest, that “spectator” science or secular science does not allow or explain where consciousness fits in and so deep seated queries remain.I would suggest that the science that tries to back up secular “spectator” science is in error and observations related to its Big Bang foundational theory are proving by observation to be incorrect.

The Big Bang theory relies on that unknown flowery “secular” mathematical force “Gravity” which we all know to date is a mythical force.

Nobody has the slightest clue what it is.

[Joshua10]

Any way getting back to the post topic.

There is not the slightest convincible “stage by stage” detailed evidence for evolution whatsoever so I would suggest that that secularist shouldn’t be basing their science on wishful hopes just because their belief systems DICTATE to them.

Animals change within their kinds and can only reproduce with their kinds.So birds cannot morph into dogs etc as secularist try to claim in their HOPES.

[Sy Borg]

Individual humans don't appear to have evolved quickly, but the collective - humanity - has evolved at a rate that even astonishes itself.

[Pattern-chaser]

But you aren't being clear. Why not just say that a religious view is better than a secular one, and then tell us all how and why that is so, instead of merely slagging-off the opposition?

I am being totally clear, I have suggested secularism is completely in the dark whereby understanding consciousness is concerned. I would suggest that secularism would agree with this.

You have told us what's wrong — "secular science" — but have not offered what is right, or why.

Please explain why you think secularism has the authority on science when it is totally ignorant about consciousness?

Straw man attack (see quote below). I have not suggested that "secularism has the authority on science", nor even hinted at that view. I have tried to discover what you think is right, not to oppose or judge your position.

What is a straw man argument?

A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version. In creating a straw man argument, the arguer strips the opposing point of view of any nuance and often misrepresents it in a negative light.

The straw man fallacy is an informal fallacy, which means that the flaw lies with the arguer’s method of arguing rather than the flaws of the argument itself. The straw man fallacy avoids the opponent’s actual argument and instead argues against an inaccurate caricature of it. By doing this, the straw man fallacy is a fallacy of relevance, because with it the arguer doesn’t engage with the relevant components of their opposer’s position.

All I can suggest is that “player” science I.e, nature science (because it explains consciousness) does answer the deeper queries whilst backing it up with real science.I would suggest that natures science is a team player.

This is the first indication you have posted about what you think is right. But your description is still too vague for me to understand, I'm afraid. What is "nature science"? Is it anything to do with Goethean science?

I prefer “player” science or natures science because it allows and explains where consciousness fits in and answers all my queries and provides sound science to back it up.

More praise for "nature's science", but I still don't know what that is. What is it, please?

The Big Bang theory relies on that unknown flowery “secular” mathematical force “Gravity” which we all know to date is a mythical force. Nobody has the slightest clue what it is.

Oh, we know what gravity is. We can see it by dropping a stone and watching it fall. It is quite true, I believe, that we have no idea why gravity should be as it is, or the underlying mechanism(s) behind it. But does that make it "mythical"? Given that we can demonstrate gravity as simply as I have just described, it seems a bit far-fetched to refer to it as "mythical", wouldn't you say?

[Joshua10]

Individual humans don't appear to have evolved quickly, but the collective - humanity - has evolved at a rate that even astonishes itself.

You make statements that you cannot provide definitive proof for Sy Borg.All you stated is wishful thinking HOPES.There is no credible detailed evidence I.e. billions and billions of stage by stage examples of all the changes the evolution theory claims.Absolutely zero evidence of such detailed minute proof.Nothing.

To try and claim a link with a few monkey bones is mere desperation and quite frankly ridiculous and embarrassingly not the scientific way.

There has been significant change in the dog kinds or the bird kinds for example,yes,that is clear,but that is not definitive proof of evolution.