Philosophy Now Forum

sthit:

Because for you" I don't know" doesn't mean "I don't know". For you " I don't know" means "you don't know? Aha! Therefore, God!" for you, "I don't know" is simply an acknowledgement of God. Anything that cannot be explained is God. You are never saying " I don't know". You are only saying, "see? God!"

No, I appreciate I don't know in philosophy as Socrates meant it. For example, Socrates heard people using the word justice all the time. But when asked what justice is we get a flurry of societal opinions and partial truths. Socrates was wise enough to admit he didn't know what justice was while those around him were referring to it all the time. Questions like this invite the experience of awe and wonder which compliments science. Awe and wonder do not define God. Rather they open a door through which authentic impartial contemplation becomes possible.

Nick_A wrote:sthit:

Because for you" I don't know" doesn't mean "I don't know". For you " I don't know" means "you don't know? Aha! Therefore, God!" for you, "I don't know" is simply an acknowledgement of God. Anything that cannot be explained is God. You are never saying " I don't know". You are only saying, "see? God!"

No, I appreciate I don't know in philosophy as Socrates meant it. For example, Socrates heard people using the word justice all the time. But when asked what justice is we get a flurry of societal opinions and partial truths. Socrates was wise enough to admit he didn't know what justice was while those around him were referring to it all the time. Questions like this invite the experience of awe and wonder which compliments science. Awe and wonder do not define God. Rather they open a door through which authentic impartial contemplation becomes possible.

Well, my argument is that it is not an authentic and impartial contemplation because the assumption that God exists is already built into the assumption. If you ever said, let us assume God exists then.... or let us assume God does not exist then.... , I would maybe agree but It is always God exists therefore.... And that is the problem. The existence of God is not to be questioned. That door is closed. Period. Science simply refuses to accept that as the scientific method. They are polar opposites. In science, all options have to kept open by necessity.

sthit wrote:

Well, my argument is that it is not an authentic and impartial contemplation because the assumption that God exists is already built into the assumption. If you ever said, let us assume God exists then.... or let us assume God does not exist then.... , I would maybe agree but It is always God exists therefore.... And that is the problem. The existence of God is not to be questioned. That door is closed. Period. Science simply refuses to accept that as the scientific method. They are polar opposites. In science, all options have to kept open by necessity.

Let's take the personal God out of the question for a moment. Imagine yourself standing outside on a clear night looking up at the stars. All of a sudden you have a strong emotional experience of awe and wonder that makes you feel small in relation to what is inspiring this feeling. Have you ever had an experience like that and if you have had such an experience could it have been more than fantasy and an emotional realization of something greater than yourself?

Nick_A wrote:sthit wrote:

Well, my argument is that it is not an authentic and impartial contemplation because the assumption that God exists is already built into the assumption. If you ever said, let us assume God exists then.... or let us assume God does not exist then.... , I would maybe agree but It is always God exists therefore.... And that is the problem. The existence of God is not to be questioned. That door is closed. Period. Science simply refuses to accept that as the scientific method. They are polar opposites. In science, all options have to kept open by necessity.

Let's take the personal God out of the question for a moment. Imagine yourself standing outside on a clear night looking up at the stars. All of a sudden you have a strong emotional experience of awe and wonder that makes you feel small in relation to what is inspiring this feeling. Have you ever had an experience like that and if you have had such an experience could it have been more than fantasy and an emotional realization of something greater than yourself?

Yes, it could be. Possibly. Maybe. But you take it to mean it most certainly is without a question absolutely. As long as that is the stand, science simply cannot agree. You never say there could be something out there. You insist there absolutely is. And that is the problem science has with religion. Everyone feels it. But it is not necessary to conclude without doubt that it means the existence of something greater than yourself that lies behind the scenes. The universe and the sight itself is something greater than myself. Why do I need to assume there is something greater and unseen behind it?

sthit wrote:

Yes, it could be. Possibly. Maybe. But you take it to mean it most certainly is without a question absolutely. As long as that is the stand, science simply cannot agree. You never say there could be something out there. You insist there absolutely is. And that is the problem science has with religion. Everyone feels it. But it is not necessary to conclude without doubt that it means the existence of something greater than yourself that lies behind the scenes. The universe and the sight itself is something greater than myself. Why do I need to assume there is something greater and unseen behind it?

Pure science in pursuit of truth and not a tool of an agenda knows its purpose and its limitations. The essence of religion also knows its complimentary purpose and its limitations.Science deals with facts and the essence of religion deals with values. The unification of facts and values leads to a human rather than a conditioned perspective.

Take beauty for example. How does science react to beauty? How does the religious philosopher react to beauty? They are both concerned with the human need to understand and are not in opposition to each other. So problems begin when both science and religion become perverted for egoistic aims rather than for revelations of truth.

Nick_A wrote:
Pure science in pursuit of truth and not a tool of an agenda knows its purpose and its limitations. The essence of religion also knows its complimentary purpose and its limitations.Science deals with facts and the essence of religion deals with values. The unification of facts and values leads to a human rather than a conditioned perspective.

Take beauty for example. How does science react to beauty? How does the religious philosopher react to beauty? They are both concerned with the human need to understand and are not in opposition to each other. So problems begin when both science and religion become perverted for egoistic aims rather than for revelations of truth.

There can be no unification of facts and values. Specifically values derived from a false conclusion. Sooner or later there will be conflict between the two. And there really is no need to unify the two. Both should stay separate since there is no common meeting ground between the two.

It can be done, ID people got it wrong, and thinks the creator controls every single atom, thus everything are designed, but they'r wrong, it's more like blillard where the initial punch are the creator moment, else the balls are on their own. So every now and then the creator will punch the balls to direct.