spiritual science

[Nathan Poe]

and So does the bible, God! And His Spirit. Hey, I caught the error of science falsely so called, is this book good, or what?!

Except that it has no way of showing your own errors; your ego gets in the way.

Think about it, dad: When have you, or any other true believer, ever admitted to making a mistake?

 

[TheNewAge]

I think it would be best to ignore Dad's comments because they simply are too foolish to be in earnest. Obviously, he just wishes to cause a stir, and has been doing it for quite some time.
If he does honestly believe the things that he spouts out, he is proof that more primitive examples of the species we see today are still present because they were not exposed to the same stimuli that selected the rest of us to evolve-- like education and the need for critical thinking.

 

[TheNewAge]

he is proof that more primitive examples of the species we see today are still present because they were not exposed to the same stimuli that selected the rest of us to evolve-- like education and the need for critical thinking.

Sorry, Dad, a little bit too harsh. I am new to this forum thing and my emotions hold as much sway over me as anyone else's I suppose. But really, this belief of yours in "physical science" and "spiritual science" sounds rather ridiculous. You need to post some evidence. Because God says so or because the bible says so is not evidence-- that is called stonewalling. And by the way, there is no mention of physical and spiritual science anywhere in the Bible, correct me if I am wrong. Is this theory perhaps your own creation?

 

[dpatrick]

"Science is superior in its assessment of truth because it requires that all things be tested by experimental observation, and any other attainment of truth is thus inferior because it cannot be tested by experimental observation --- as science requires" is circular reasoning at its best.

Yes, it is. Good thing science doesn't say that, is isn't it? Or are you one of those people who know so little about science that you think it actually does say that?

The best a truly devoted follower of science (read: follower of naturalism) can state in response to the above is: "I cannot accept or entertain the existence of an invisible Creator or the supernatural because my belief system will not allow me to."

Completely false and without support. Really, learn something about science before you post again.

Seems like I have missed all the fun while I was away. It seems I may not have made my point clear, so let me try again by way of response (note: all references to "science" and "scientist" actually refer to "naturalism" and "naturalist/materialist"):

Circular reasoning response: Actually, Science does in fact say that. The premise of scientific thought is that truth cannot be attained except by proof, and proof by definition through scientific processes ("experimental observation"). That is why when a Christian says, "God is real!", the Scientist responds: "Prove it!" --- Unless of course, ESceptic can tell us that, since my time at the University, scientists have adopted meditation and Eastern mysticism into their regimen to obtain scientific findings. This alone does not make science circular, by the way. It is only when an individual says, "Science is so more superior at understanding the deep mysteries of the Universe (esp. the origin of creation, live, and the existence of a Creator) because any other method is not scientifically verifiable," that it becomes self-serving and yes, quite circular. That is the point I was making.

"All the devoted follower of science can state" response: In light of my explanation above (which hopefully clears up any confusion), actually totally true and totally supported.

 

[dpatrick]

Um, no and no.

Grizzly: see above post for my clarification, as I think me being unclear is perhaps the culprit. Feel free to let me know if it is still unclear.

Science is superior because, among other things, it acknowledges that we are fallible human beings and thus has a built-in error detection and correction mechanism.

To whether science has a a built-in error detection and correction mechanism, agreed. To whether it is superior remains to be established. Would you like to try?

What other system of accumulating knowledge has this?

To respond, there is another method for attaining understanding and knowledge which is clearly discussed in the Bible. It is called revelation. It presupposes mankind's ability to discern the mysteries of life are not limited to what he can deduce by staring into a microscope (however valuable, mind you). It also presupposes this to be universal. But the scientific mind (as defined in the previous post) rejects this as valid simply because it does not play by its own self-defined rules.

Second, a devoted follower of science could in fact entertain the existance of an invisible creator. There just has to be evidence pointing in that direction.

Exactly my point: "Science will come to believe in a Creator the moment we can prove him." Why? Because science requires this.

 

[Ophis]

You need to post some evidence.

Good luck getting him to do that.

 

[dad]

Except that it has no way of showing your own errors; your ego gets in the way.

Think about it, dad: When have you, or any other true believer, ever admitted to making a mistake?

Plenty, when did you admit granny was a fraud!?

 

[dad]

Sorry, Dad, a little bit too harsh. I am new to this forum thing and my emotions hold as much sway over me as anyone else's I suppose. But really, this belief of yours in "physical science" and "spiritual science" sounds rather ridiculous. You need to post some evidence. Because God says so or because the bible says so is not evidence-- that is called stonewalling. And by the way, there is no mention of physical and spiritual science anywhere in the Bible, correct me if I am wrong. Is this theory perhaps your own creation?

It really isn't terribly complicated, the idea that the bible talks of times when there is the spiritual as well as the physical together. I have raised many example in this thread. With all the negative time wasting, empty posters buzzing around like flies, trying to post just to be stubborn, with nothing to say, I know this adds so much volume it makes it difficult to sift through, for the gold.
Now, as for not accepting the bible at all, fine, this is kosher. Then, we are lft with natural science, and the regular knowledge we have. This knowledge is not going to disprove that there will be a merged heaven coming, or anything that involves the spiritual, as you may know. This again, is all fine, we all know this.
But, since I make a case that there was a merged earth past, involving even the flood, neither can science disprove this, of course. Therefore, any element of science, or what is called science, that claims we had always a physical only world here has no possible basis for the claim other than, also, belief. Both ideas have us in a natural, or physical world at the moment, so being here is not proof it was the same, or different. Pick your belief, enjoy, but don't call it more than that as respects our future or past!!!!!

 

[dad]

Good luck getting him to do that.

If you don't accept the world of evidences people have that make most of the world believe in the spiritual of some kind, then you must stick to your own beliefs, and be honest about them. I don't need to prove a known quantity at all to anyone, especially if they are of another belief. I simply point out, as you go off in your own chosen direction, and belief, that science can never prove there was a physical only past, and that the bible, I believe indicates otherwise.

I am open to a biblical challenge, if any had a case, but, really it is pretty cut and dry here.

 

[dad]

I think it would be best to ignore Dad's comments because they simply are too foolish to be in earnest. Obviously, he just wishes to cause a stir, and has been doing it for quite some time.
If he does honestly believe the things that he spouts out, he is proof that more primitive examples of the species we see today are still present because they were not exposed to the same stimuli that selected the rest of us to evolve-- like education and the need for critical thinking.

Big talk for an idea presenting pipsqueak!

 

[Grizzly]

Grizzly: see above post for my clarification, as I think me being unclear is perhaps the culprit. Feel free to let me know if it is still unclear.

Thanks for the clarification - and the civility in your posts. It's much appreciated.

To whether science has a a built-in error detection and correction mechanism, agreed. To whether it is superior remains to be established. Would you like to try?

When I said that it was superior, I was expressing my opinion. I feel that it is superior because it's a system that acknowledges that we are fallible, and tries to adjust for that. Revelation does not have the same ability. If someone says that a truth was revealed to them, then how are we to know if it is in fact a truth, or that the person is in error?

To respond, there is another method for attaining understanding and knowledge which is clearly discussed in the Bible. It is called revelation. It presupposes mankind's ability to discern the mysteries of life are not limited to what he can deduce by staring into a microscope (however valuable, mind you). It also presupposes this to be universal. But the scientific mind (as defined in the previous post) rejects this as valid simply because it does not play by its own self-defined rules.

Again, how are we to decide true revelation from false? For example, in this country many years ago, slavery was condoned in the Southern states of the US. Southern Christians argued that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible and that, after much prayer, they felt that God was on their side. However, many Christian in the northern states, felt exactly the opposite. They felt that slavery was not sanctioned by the bible and that God did not condone slavery.

How can one decide when one side is correct and the other side not? Granted, science cannot decide this issue either, but I provide this an an example of the flaw of revealed religion - there is no way to determine truth from falsehood. If enought people believe it to be true, than it is. There is no error correction mechanism.

Exactly my point: "Science will come to believe in a Creator the moment we can prove him." Why? Because science requires this.

Of course science requires evidence. Why is this not a good thing?

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Seems like I have missed all the fun while I was away. It seems I may not have made my point clear, so let me try again by way of response (note: all references to "science" and "scientist" actually refer to "naturalism" and "naturalist/materialist"):

If you mean "naturalism" and "naturalist/materialist", then say so...do not try to imply that science is naturalism, for it is not.

Circular reasoning response: Actually, Science does in fact say that. The premise of scientific thought is that truth cannot be attained except by proof, and proof by definition through scientific processes ("experimental observation"). That is why when a Christian says, "God is real!", the Scientist responds: "Prove it!" --- Unless of course, ESceptic can tell us that, since my time at the University, scientists have adopted meditation and Eastern mysticism into their regimen to obtain scientific findings. This alone does not make science circular, by the way. It is only when an individual says, "Science is so more superior at understanding the deep mysteries of the Universe (esp. the origin of creation, live, and the existence of a Creator) because any other method is not scientifically verifiable," that it becomes self-serving and yes, quite circular. That is the point I was making.

No, science does not. Naturalism might, but science is not naturalism.

"All the devoted follower of science can state" response: In light of my explanation above (which hopefully clears up any confusion), actually totally true and totally supported.

No, completely false and totally unsupported. All you have done is attempt to conflate science and materialism. This is simply dishonest.

 

[AV1611VET]

Knowledge is not limited to physical. Science today generally is limited to the physical, but the bible indicates that more was at work in our past. Because of this, we can now understand that the flood, and garden, and all things the bible tells are true after all, and it was just a shortcoming in modern science logic mistakenly trying to be applied to a past that was not physical only.

And you have 3x more posts than the #2 poster!

 

[Tomatoman]

And you have 3x more posts than the #2 poster!

Do you believe William Blake's visions were eyewitness accounts of real events?

(I'm assuming you've heard of William Blake, which might be optimistic.)

 

[Gracchus]

This thread has been dead so long it has almost ceased to stink!