On 23 July, 15:26, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > I still don't get your problem that you seek reconciliation for, I'm > sorry. > Let me paraphrase it: When you study English at a German university > you are obliged to deal with your subject matter via the "scientific" > linguistic specs AND the "religious" literary ones. Try to sell them a > book on sequenced reconciliation and they wouldn't know where to place > it. >
The reconciliation I seek is that Science recognise that God actually IS a scientific possibility and, furthermore, given certain facts about this universe, it's likely. Science isn't too happy about that, as it has that unwritten statement that God simply can't be a viable scientific outcome. Notwithstanding, I can demontrate a system, based on the mathematics of string theory, that shows otherwise and answers more questions than any other 'theory' on the market. 'Science', as a whole, is REALLY not going to like it when I point out that, according to their own 'laws' that 'Creation in 6 days' is absolutely plausible. And, they can only refute it if they completely backtrack on the Hubble Constant and declare that it doesn't really exist. > On 23 Jul., 14:04, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 22 July, 17:08, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I've learned so much in college compared to what I was taught in > > > public school that it is ridiculous. I tend to prefer English/Phil > > > classes, as I have. a major in English and a minor in Philosophy. > > > Just so all of you know, I do tend to lean more towards materialism > > > and science over mysticism, however, I do not entirely discredit > > > mysticism. There is a certain level of truth that can be found in > > > mystical works that are on a higher level than straight fact or direct > > > relation. I did not used to always be this way, however. I used to > > > think that religion, mysticism, etc, were all hogwash, but now I see > > > the other side of things. I read some works by Karen Armstrong (The > > > Case for God) and Robertson Jr. (The Loss and Recovery of > > > Transcendence), and I had never considered this fact: The scientific > > > method fails at passing it's own criterion for truth. You see, > > > something is considered empirically verifiable if observation > > > statements logically imply the truth of the claim. If actual > > > observation statements do imply the claim, then it is verified, so for > > > instance the statement that "This sheep is white" verifies the > > > statement that "There are white sheep." Now, taking verifiablity a > > > step further, Popper insisted on falsifiablity as well. What this > > > means is that for universal claims, if for any reason at any point in > > > time I come upon a black sheep, or a blue sheep, then the universal > > > claim that all sheep are white has come crashing down like a house of > > > cards. On the surface, this set of standards seems to be quite a > > > solid criterion for locating truth, but let's test the definition to > > > itself. Science claims that if something is not falsifiable or > > > verifiable, then it is meaningless. So, now let's run that statement > > > through the grind. We cannot, indeed, verify whether or not the claim > > > that "In order for something to be meaningful it must be verifiable," > > > is true, and we cannot falsify the claim, so in actually, the > > > foundations for modern science are pretty much on the same foundations > > > as religion. Now, don't get me wrong, I am a strong advocate for > > > science, and I love the life and luxury that science has provided me. > > > I just wanted to make those of you who were not aware, that science > > > cannot pass it's own criterions of meaning. > > > Spot on! Science takes just as much faith as does religion. The > > difference is that science cloaks it by referring to aspects of faith > > as 'axioms', those things which you MUST accept without proof: like > > F=MA (force=mass*acceleration), which has never been proven. > > > > After pointing this fact out to me, I felt even more lost then > > > before. You mean, both science and religion are still founded on > > > bullshit!? This put me in a state of distress, however Robertson > > > provides a solution. Since we are able to determine that the parts of > > > reality that we experience are real and meaningful, then via modus > > > ponens, the Whole is meaningful. If the Whole is meaningful, and not > > > at all based on a nihilistic model of reality, then mankind has a > > > responsibility to aspire for fellowship, community, transparency, and > > > perfection. > > > Which is, of course, a religious ideal! Ironic, ain't it? > > > >Perhaps this last bit is a jump in logic, and hell, maybe > > > even idealistic, but it's better for me to think this than it is for > > > me to lie down and cry like a baby at my inability to come to an > > > understanding of my reality, isn't it? :) > > > I agree. It IS an ideal, however there's nothing inherently wrong > > about having ideals. In an ideal world, science could pass its own > > criteria for meaning and, maybe someday it will. But I reckon it will > > have to reconcile with religion prior to that. And that > > reconciliation is exactly what I'm working on. Glad to have you > > aboard!! > > > > On Jul 22, 9:01 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Welcome aboard! I think literature is a "poor man's" philosophy- what > > > > do you think? Diluted further would be great theater and movies and a > > > > few lyrics.//My major was Engl. Lit- B.A. and most of a an M.A. > > > > program but I honestly preferred Classics/myth and Humanities survey > > > > courses- the latter to counteract a Catholic education and enlighten > > > > me about the rest of humanity- we were raised in such a glass bubble- > > > > so sheltered- it was ridiculous. > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:40 pm, pindleton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi everyone! This may be un-proper of me, since I will admit I > > > > > haven't taken the time to read through all of the posting rules, but I > > > > > just wanted to take the time to introduce myself. My name is Dustin, > > > > > I'm a 23 year old college student studying English, and I love to talk > > > > > about Philosophy! > > > > > > Some of you may have already met me from Mind's Eye @ Gravity (Orn, > > > > > Kierke, Darkwater, etc.) so I'm glad I could join you. > > > > > > Anyway, I look forward to posting some convos and participating in the > > > > > debate, see you guys around!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
