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

[Joshua10]

You can make statements that you cannot prove for example like no God exists...

There is no proof (or rebuttal) of any sort that God does or does not exist.

...and therefore there is no such thing as right or wrong.

This doesn't follow from your sentence introduction.

I totally agree.Nature is not remotely interested in the does God exist? or doesn’t God exist debate.It doesn’t take sides.

However,it recognises that if a God does exist then Good could be Good and Bad could be Bad and there is a difference between the two I.e. 1=1 and 0=0.Clearly atheistic science doesn’t agree with this as it has already made its decision on that score hence why it’s logic is always 0=1 and 1=0 and it will not change this stance.Secular science therefore HOPES that good is bad and bad is good and bases ALL it’s science and philosophy on this hopeful half logic.The theist on the other hand is willing to accept that there may be a difference between good and bad as well in HOPE and therefore utilises full logic in full balanced reasonings which is consistent with natures science and psychological full logic.

All sciences are interconnected.

[Joshua10]

After all, the best that both sides of the debate can do is HOPE in imperfection.Both sides would be perfect if they knew for sure.

[Pattern-chaser]

Clearly atheistic science doesn’t agree with this as it has already made its decision on that score, hence why its logic is always 0=1 and 1=0...

I hesitate to ask, but why do you continue to repeat this incorrect assertion?

[Joshua10]

Clearly atheistic science doesn’t agree with this as it has already made its decision on that score, hence why its logic is always 0=1 and 1=0...

I hesitate to ask, but why do you continue to repeat this incorrect assertion?

Because at the philosophical level it’s true.

[Pattern-chaser]

At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

[Joshua10]

At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

Secularism does by claiming good is bad and bad is good because it doesn’t want to accept the possibility that a God might exist.So at the the philosophical level it is true.

[Robert66]

At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

Secularism does by claiming good is bad and bad is good because it doesn’t want to accept the possibility that a God might exist.So at the the philosophical level it is true.

Congratulations, Joshua10, for writing the most nonsensical sentence to appear in these forums since Lambert last wrote, a very difficult feat indeed!

[Joshua10]

At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

Secularism does by claiming good is bad and bad is good because it doesn’t want to accept the possibility that a God might exist.So at the the philosophical level it is true.

Congratulations, Joshua10, for writing the most nonsensical sentence to appear in these forums since Lambert last wrote, a very difficult feat indeed!

Sorry,not sure what you mean.Can you explain your claim?

[Joshua10]

Natures logic doesn’t claim definitively that good is bad and bad is good or that good is good and bad is bad.What it does do is accept them all as possibilities and utilises 0,0 …0,1…..1,0…..1,1 logic in its make up which is confirmed by the 4 magnetic interactions NN,NS,SN,SS.It isn’t possible to balance any of these 4 interactions because they either produce an attraction or a repulsion.In order to balance things you require a + and - on both sides of the fence.So the formula Toggling + and - = Toggling + and - holds true.

So secular science’s claim that a + = - is incorrect.

[Joshua10]

So all of secular science which is based upon +=- and -=+ logic is not consistent with natures logic.

[Joshua10]

You see secular science assumes at the philosophical level that good is bad and bad is good or a + is the same as a - at the scientific level as the starting point for its science and philosophy going forward,in error.Natures science confirms and has always confirmed that you cannot balance a + with a -

[Joshua10]

You can’t balance a + with a + or a - with a - either.

[Joshua10]

Everything in the cosmos vibrates due to the formula:

toggling +/- charges = toggling +/- charges.

PERIOD

[Belindi]

Joshua, were you ever required to do simple scientific experiments when you were at school?

I think you have asked that question before.

Can I ask what is your point? Do you even have a point? Please try to be more clear with what you are asking.Thanks.

I ask because your idea of science and what scientists do is eccentric. It seems that you have learned a theory of science that is not based on what is taught in standard Enlightenment- based education.
As philosophers we don't dismiss your theory out of hand but prefer to think of it hypothetically. It would be easier to understand you if I knew which tradition you had learned from e.g. a church , the internet, a cult, state school, private school, some real life acquaintance , friend, or spouse, or some obscure metaphysical belief system.

Philosophy is an academic discipline and this forum seems to be made up of mainly amateurs. However even as amateurs I think there is a general consensus here that we have views such as post-Enlightenment people hold. Of course nobody is compelled to toe the line however extraordinary claims such as "toggling" and "secular science" demand explanation with paraphrase into a standard lexicon.

[Joshua10]

I’m just your average person seeking answers too life’s deeper questions.I do accept that my views/opinions/theories are not in line with the secular science and philosophy stance.Secularism has its stance.

I know enough about science to relate it to the other sciences of which there are direct correlations when it comes to logic principles.

My scientific views correlate with my philosophical and psychological views.All sciences are interconnected with the same principles after all.

I maintain that secularism has disappeared down a rabbit hole and can’t find its way back because it has not / is not being honest with itself.

Natures science and philosophy is honest with itself.