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

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

OK, let's just take that one statement. Please can you offer a specific example of 'secular' science, or 'secular' philosophy, claiming that good is bad, or that bad is good? Thanks.

the gravity theory

OK, thanks for the example. Now please could you offer an example that spells out clearly how the gravity theory claims that good is bad, or that bad is good? A quote from a book on 'secular' science would be really helpful. But any clear example will do. Thanks.

The gravity theory is a half theory based upon +=- and -=+ logic, i.e. good is bad and bad is good logic. The gravity theory is only an attractive theory and so not a full theory.

A poor theory made up from secular flowery mathematical assumptions.

But there is no "theory of gravity" in science. Newton's 'law' of gravity is just a curve-fitted solution that predicts and quantifies gravitational attraction, but, as you say, we have no idea why this mathematical approximation works, and we have no idea how gravity works. There have been theories — ideas, possibilities; nothing more — presented over the years, but none have been sufficiently convincing to present as a 'theory' of how gravity might work.

Given that there is no theory of gravity, it would seem that your objection here is without foundation. There is no "half theory", because there is no theory.

[Pattern-chaser]

Mainstream science is totally based upon the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.Totally.

Incorrect. Science has nothing useful to say about God's existence. Science cannot comment on matters where, as in this case, there is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence. So the truth of what you say is this:

Mainstream science is indifferent to the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.

It has to be, just as science cannot comment on the possibility that we are all brains-in-vats. The topic is outside the scope of science.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, you say "atheistic science". Do you think an atheist is someone who does not believe his or her soul will live after they die?

I would suggest that an atheists doesn’t believe that there is a soul.I would suggest that atheists embrace “inward only” out of the moment,dualistic reasoning to conclude that SELF is an illusion and we are all no more than consciousness.They deny the very thing that decided to go inward to reason in the first place.How stupid is that? Buddhism meditation is a typical example of inward only meditation.Inward only meditation has always happened.I would suggest that Buddhism just claims it’s a meditative practice unique to their religion (and it is a religion),which is utter laughable nonsense of course.The Buddha was just a “prisoner of consciousness”.

[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.

OK, let's just take that one statement. Please can you offer a specific example of 'secular' science, or 'secular' philosophy, claiming that good is bad, or that bad is good? Thanks.

the gravity theory

OK, thanks for the example. Now please could you offer an example that spells out clearly how the gravity theory claims that good is bad, or that bad is good? A quote from a book on 'secular' science would be really helpful. But any clear example will do. Thanks.

The gravity theory is a half theory based upon +=- and -=+ logic, i.e. good is bad and bad is good logic. The gravity theory is only an attractive theory and so not a full theory.

A poor theory made up from secular flowery mathematical assumptions.

But there is no "theory of gravity" in science. Newton's 'law' of gravity is just a curve-fitted solution that predicts and quantifies gravitational attraction, but, as you say, we have no idea why this mathematical approximation works, and we have no idea how gravity works. There have been theories — ideas, possibilities; nothing more — presented over the years, but none have been sufficiently convincing to present as a 'theory' of how gravity might work.

Given that there is no theory of gravity, it would seem that your objection here is without foundation. There is no "half theory", because there is no theory.

It is a theory that the single Big Bang is based upon and we know the single BB is utter nonsense.It is a half logic theory that is based upon attraction only I.e. 0=1 ,1=0 logic.

[Joshua10]

Mainstream science is totally based upon the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.Totally.

Incorrect. Science has nothing useful to say about God's existence. Science cannot comment on matters where, as in this case, there is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence. So the truth of what you say is this:

Mainstream science is indifferent to the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.

It has to be, just as science cannot comment on the possibility that we are all brains-in-vats. The topic is outside the scope of science.

What utter nonsense.How can science be separate from God, if a God exists?

Atheistic science is “Spectator” science.Atheistic scientist need to start becoming apart of their own experiments i.e. “Player” science.Now I wonder why they would not wish to do that?

They remain in an unaware state until they do.

[Pattern-chaser]

Mainstream science is totally based upon the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.Totally.

Incorrect. Science has nothing useful to say about God's existence. Science cannot comment on matters where, as in this case, there is no (scientifically-acceptable) evidence. So the truth of what you say is this:

Mainstream science is indifferent to the assumption/guess that a God doesn’t exist.

It has to be, just as science cannot comment on the possibility that we are all brains-in-vats. The topic is outside the scope of science.

What utter nonsense.How can science be separate from God, if a God exists?

OK, I have tried quite hard to understand your position, and to respond appropriately. But you are too fond of the 'straw man' attack for me to continue. Nothing I wrote says that science and God are "separate".

[Joshua10]

My position is totally clear.

Natures science is based upon full logic philosophy and not half logic philosophy.

The science behind full logic philosophy makes perfect sense across scientific disciplines and utilises known forces in nature.

Atheistic science is based upon half logic and that is the reason atheistic science has only been able to dream up a half incorrect theory based upon a mythical force to try and explain it all

[Joshua10]

I do not engage in strawman arguments.Atheistic science adopts incorrect logic and continues producing nonsense scientific theories.

It is not possible to come up with a united scientific theory that explains it all with half logic.

[Joshua10]

Full logic allows you to continue in your ignorance if you wish.

[Joshua10]

+/- = +/- remember.

Awareness completely covers Unawareness and Unawareness is unable to overcome it.

[Joshua10]

You only use GLUE when something is broken.

[Joshua10]

I would Atheistic science does absolutely nothing for ones mental health.Natures science doesn’t work the way the atheist claim it does in their unawareness.

I would suggest that the brain does work automatically but the “I am” can take control of consciousness as well.

I would suggest that atheistic science hasn’t moved on from thoughts and emotions and has no practical understanding of consciousness.

Thoughts and emotions are the lowest on the hierarchy.

i am…Awareness …Control…Consciousness….Thoughts…..Emotions.

Atheists will never come to understand the above if they persist with their “spectator” science.

We are all embroiled within science so how can we remain separate from it? We are part of the game so have to engage with it and adopt “player” science.

The alternative is to remain on the sidelines inventing stuff for ourselves.

[Belindi]

Joshua, you say "atheistic science". Do you think an atheist is someone who does not believe his or her soul will live after they die?

I would suggest that an atheists doesn’t believe that there is a soul.I would suggest that atheists embrace “inward only” out of the moment,dualistic reasoning to conclude that SELF is an illusion and we are all no more than consciousness.They deny the very thing that decided to go inward to reason in the first place.How stupid is that? Buddhism meditation is a typical example of inward only meditation.Inward only meditation has always happened.I would suggest that Buddhism just claims it’s a meditative practice unique to their religion (and it is a religion),which is utter laughable nonsense of course.The Buddha was just a “prisoner of consciousness”.

Just to make sure I understand you.
You believe that soul and self are synonymous.
You believe that unbelief in selves-souls defines an atheist.
You believe that "the very thing that decided" is synonymous with soul or self.

I have a further question for you. A newborn human, and an adult who is clinically unconscious, and some species of animals and plants can't be or have 'things that decide', i.e. selves-souls. Do you then infer that ,of all creation, only adult, conscious, humans are or have souls-selves?

If so, then you replace the Holy Spirit which is universal with soul-self which is self-seeking.

[Joshua10]

Joshua, you say "atheistic science". Do you think an atheist is someone who does not believe his or her soul will live after they die?

I would suggest that an atheists doesn’t believe that there is a soul.I would suggest that atheists embrace “inward only” out of the moment,dualistic reasoning to conclude that SELF is an illusion and we are all no more than consciousness.They deny the very thing that decided to go inward to reason in the first place.How stupid is that? Buddhism meditation is a typical example of inward only meditation.Inward only meditation has always happened.I would suggest that Buddhism just claims it’s a meditative practice unique to their religion (and it is a religion),which is utter laughable nonsense of course.The Buddha was just a “prisoner of consciousness”.

Just to make sure I understand you.
You believe that soul and self are synonymous.
You believe that unbelief in selves-souls defines an atheist.
You believe that "the very thing that decided" is synonymous with soul or self.

I have a further question for you. A newborn human, and an adult who is clinically unconscious, and some species of animals and plants can't be or have 'things that decide', i.e. selves-souls. Do you then infer that ,of all creation, only adult, conscious, humans are or have souls-selves?

If so, then you replace the Holy Spirit which is universal with soul-self which is self-seeking.

I believe that the “I am” ,as I call it, is the controlling element to “in the moment”/“out of the moment” consciousness.

There is an independent controlling element to our make up that can control consciousness if that controlling element has awareness to do so.If it doesn’t then consciousness “toggling” just happens with no active controlling element.

As to whether this controlling element is the soul or a spirit,I reserve my opinion.If there is two parts to the “I am” then ok, I’m open to that view.

Atheists take the same view as Buddhist do in claiming that a SELF doesn’t exist.The atheists with their atheistic science claim we are no more than consciousness.They are claim this in total ignorance of course.

There is an automatic part of our nature and their is a controlling part of our nature.I would suggest that if one doesn’t recognise the controlling of consciousness part of our nature then its still there playing it’s dutiful part in the automated process in total unawareness.

The automated part of our nature can’t do it all after all.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that if the “I am” doesn’t control consciousness then it doesn’t have control of thoughts either.Thoughts can come in from nowhere.

There is a different between these inward thoughts and outwardly generated thoughts.

The controlling element (I am) ENGAGES with inward thoughts.The controlling element does not ENGAGE with outwardly generate£ thoughts because it generates them “In the moment”

If the controlling element (I am) ENGAGES with inward thoughts then an “out of the moment” consciousness state is experienced.