Philosophy Discussion Forums

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 3:09 pm At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 3:12 pm 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

The gravity theory is just to do with attraction i.e.1=0 or 0=1 or +=- or -=+ half logic

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 3:09 pm At no level is it true that any discipline, of any sort, proposes a logic whereby 1 = 0 or 0 = 1.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 3:12 pm 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.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 9:44 am 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.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 9:48 am 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.

As I have stated a +=- or -=+ in nature doesn’t provide balance it provides attraction.A -=- and +=+ don’t provide balance either only repulsion.

Only toggling +/- = toggling =/- provides a vibratory balance.

Secular science is still unaware of this.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 8:13 am 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.

What do you mean when you write "secularism"?
What do you mean by " logic principles" and how do they relate to any scientific discipline?
What principle interconnects all sciences?
Secularism is not a self and can neither disappear " down a rabbit hole" or be "honest with itself".

It's impossible to know whether or not you have a comprehensible idea as your posts are mostly platitudes or mixed metaphors ./

One guesses that you support some religion's cosmology against which you see "secularism" and "secular science" as evils.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 11:57 amIt's impossible to know whether or not you have a comprehensible idea as your posts are mostly platitudes or mixed metaphors .

It's very possible to know. How often he has repeated the same incoherent claims without ever threatening to achieve clarity or logic? Twenty times? Fifty? It's bizarre.

I see no point in encouraging him, because all you receive in reply is more of the same. He cannot elucidate or clarify because the concept itself, which rejects Newton and Einstein in toto, makes no sense at all.

Alas, there is no there, there. Though it can be irresistibly tempting to seek it out.

Good luck, but I'm not confident.

Sy Borg, I agree however this from Joshua does ring true:

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.

Joshua is a seeker like the rest of us.I guess Joshua is trying to reinvent the wheel and has attached his affection to a model that's even less substantial than Biblical literalism.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 5:25 pm Sy Borg, I agree however this from Joshua does ring true:

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.

Joshua is a seeker like the rest of us.I guess Joshua is trying to reinvent the wheel and has attached his affection to a model that's even less substantial than Biblical literalism.

I my experience, hostility towards science is based in fear of death because, according to science, there is no afterlife. I am pretty sure this is the main sticking point for theists. I have seen theists invent all manner of post-hoc rationalisations for emotionally-driven beliefs, some simple, some convoluted.

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 11:57 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 8:13 am 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.

What do you mean when you write "secularism"?
What do you mean by " logic principles" and how do they relate to any scientific discipline?
What principle interconnects all sciences?
Secularism is not a self and can neither disappear " down a rabbit hole" or be "honest with itself".

It's impossible to know whether or not you have a comprehensible idea as your posts are mostly platitudes or mixed metaphors ./

One guesses that you support some religion's cosmology against which you see "secularism" and "secular science" as evils.

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

Mainstream science is therefore atheistic science or biased science.This has come about due to the philosophical stance of atheism which claims that as there is no God then there is no such thing as absolutes whereby good and bad are concerned which is a possibility.However if there is a God then there may be absolutes.

Natures science is not atheistic or theistic.All anyone can do is HOPE that there either is or isn’t a God.

As no definitive proof is given one way or the other there are two pathways to explore logically:

1.Take the view that good is bad and bad is good and adopt 0=1…1=0 logic and see if science,philosophy,psychology make any sense with this half logic.It doesn’t.

2.Take the view that as no definitive proof is given and never will be given and adopt full logic of good is good….good is bad….bad is good…bad is bad …0,0…0,1…1,0…1,1 and see if science,philosophy,psychology make any sense with this full logic.It does.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 8:46 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 5:25 pm Sy Borg, I agree however this from Joshua does ring true:

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.

Joshua is a seeker like the rest of us.I guess Joshua is trying to reinvent the wheel and has attached his affection to a model that's even less substantial than Biblical literalism.

I my experience, hostility towards science is based in fear of death because, according to science, there is no afterlife. I am pretty sure this is the main sticking point for theists. I have seen theists invent all manner of post-hoc rationalisations for emotionally-driven beliefs, some simple, some convoluted.

I am not hostile to natures science.I totally accept natures science.I totally reject atheistic science because it makes absolutely not sense whatsoever scientifically,philosophically or psychologically because it’s foundational logic is dishonest.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 5:10 pm

Belindi wrote: ↑September 30th, 2022, 11:57 amIt's impossible to know whether or not you have a comprehensible idea as your posts are mostly platitudes or mixed metaphors .

It's very possible to know. How often he has repeated the same incoherent claims without ever threatening to achieve clarity or logic? Twenty times? Fifty? It's bizarre.

I see no point in encouraging him, because all you receive in reply is more of the same. He cannot elucidate or clarify because the concept itself, which rejects Newton and Einstein in toto, makes no sense at all.

Sy Borg.You are totally embroiled in the game whether you like it or not.Why remain a spectator?

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?