Is science devil-oriented?

[questfortruth]

QUOTE:

Opponent: ``no evidence, here. No demonic testable evidence, and the Bible is not a biology textbook.''

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion, however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter. The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``Demons?!''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

 

[Phaedrus]

The demonization of something tends to stem from one's unreasonable misunderstanding of it.

 

[Spirit of Light]

QUOTE:

Opponent: ``I do not see any empirical evidence, here. Blaming it on demons seems simplistic, and the Bible is hardly a biology text.''

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion, however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter. The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``What are the demons you speak of? where are they?
How would you be able to ``prove" that it is demons and for example not a form of Karma that is the cause of the person getting schizophrenia?''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

This text"
Opponent: ``What are the demons you speak of? where are they?
How would you be able to ``prove" that it is demons and for example not a form of Karma that is the cause of the person getting schizophrenia?''
That is a direct quote from what I said in one of your other threads. Why did you not ask me in the forum or in a PM to be allowed to quote what I ask you? I still stand by my words in your previous threads, and i am not directly offended by you using my words, But PLEASE ask first since your paper is written outside of RF.

 

[questfortruth]

This text"
Opponent: ``What are the demons you speak of? where are they?
How would you be able to ``prove" that it is demons and for example not a form of Karma that is the cause of the person getting schizophrenia?''
That is a direct quote from what I said in one of your other threads. Why did you not ask me in the forum or in a PM to be allowed to quote what I ask you? I still stand by my words in your previous threads, and i am not directly offended by you using my words, But PLEASE ask first since your paper is written outside of RF.

I have not stollen your idea, because you have not given me any idea.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I have not stollen your idea, because you have not given me any idea.

But clearly what you use as Opponent to your discussion come from what I wrote yesterday in your other thread, Right? is that within the rules of RF?

 

[questfortruth]

But clearly what you use as Opponent to your discussion come from what I wrote yesterday in your other thread, Right? is that within the rules of RF?

It is not going outside the RF. Calm down, friend.

 

[Sunstone]

But clearly what you use as Opponent to your discussion come from what I wrote yesterday in your other thread, Right? is that within the rules of RF?

According to RF's Terms and Rules you Amanaki posses the copyright to all material that you yourself have created. Of course, you grant RF unlimited rights to use it, etc. but nowhere in the Terms and Rules does it say you grant anyone else unlimited rights to use it. I am not a lawyer, but if someone were to steal my material and make money from stealing it I might be interested in suing them for the earnings. To me, it would depend on how much money they were making off my property.

 

[Spirit of Light]

According to RF's Terms and Rules you Amanaki posses the copyright to all material that you yourself have created. Of course, you grant RF unlimited rights to use it, etc. but nowhere in the Terms and Rules does it say you grant anyone else unlimited rights to use it. I am not a lawyer, but if someone were to steal my material and make money from stealing it I might be interested in suing them for the earnings. To me, it would depend on how much money they were making off my property.

Thank you @Sunstone , this is what I wanted to find an answer to. And to all who read this. I do not mind people using my words, But it would be kind of them if they asked me first otherwise, it is as Sunstone say, a form of stealing

 

[questfortruth]

Thank you @Sunstone , this is what I wanted to find an answer to. And to all who read this. I do not mind people using my words, But it would be kind of them if they asked me first otherwise, it is as Sunstone say, a form of stealing

It is not going outside the RF.

 

[Regiomontanus]

"The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics."

Kepler

QUOTE:

Opponent: ``I do not see any empirical evidence, here. Blaming it on demons seems simplistic, and the Bible is hardly a biology text.''

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion, however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter. The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``Demons?!''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

 

[ChristineM]

QUOTE:

Opponent: ``I do not see any empirical evidence, here. Blaming it on demons seems simplistic, and the Bible is hardly a biology text.''

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion, however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter. The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``Demons?!''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, although he has views (strong views) on cosmology he is not a cosmologist. An alternative argument made by many actual cosmologists is that ther are billions of universes just like ours and trillions more that we cannot begin to understand.

 

[shunyadragon]

QUOTE:

Opponent: ``I do not see any empirical evidence, here. Blaming it on demons seems simplistic, and the Bible is hardly a biology text.''

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion, however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter. The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``Demons?!''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

This is an unfortunate reliance on an ancient paradigm as an anti-science agenda, and also, a dishonest selective citation and misuse of Michio Kaku to justify your agenda.

The whole technological world around us including modern medicine, and the computers we are using are based on science and Methodological Naturalism, and not the ancient text you rely on.

Is your solution to the 'Demons' is burn the scientists at the stack?

This sounds like an amusing parody from the 'Onion.'

 

[questfortruth]

This is an unfortunate reliance on an ancient paradigm as an anti-science agenda, and also, a dishonest selective citation and misuse of Michio Kaku to justify your agenda.

The whole technological world around us including modern medicine, and the computers we are using are based on science and Methodological Naturalism, and not the ancient text you rely on.

Is your solution to the 'Demons' is burn the scientists at the stack?

This sounds like an amusing parody from the 'Onion.'

Simply my arguments (I have used laws of logic, you know) have made no impact on RF.

 

[shunyadragon]

Simply my arguments (I have used laws of logic, you know) have made no impact on RF.

I do not believe that your view and this thread are based on a neutral line of logic. The best logical arguments that follow the Laws of Logic have a wide acceptance of the assumptions in the arguments. Your argument lacks that, and it is based on your religious beliefs, and like attempts at logical arguments from this perspective that are based on religious assumptions, and of course 'begging the question' in the extreme. The conclusions of these arguments are only accepted and believed by those that believe as you do, and you must realize you are 'preaching to the quire.' For logical arguments to have an impact they have to have a broader foundation in the assumptions of the argument. That has been how sound logic has been used since the Greeks and likely earlier.

On the other hand Methodological Naturalism is neutral to any theological assumptions and beliefs. The 'quest for truth' should be neutral to any subjective theological and/or philosophical assumptions.

 

[Ouroboros]

Me: ``You have seen the negative sights, because you are using ``scientific skepticism". Latter is the fallacy of wishfull thinking. Try again, but now use the ``scientific trust". The current Methodology of science is devil-oriented, e.g., methodological naturalism is demand to ignore the interplay between Nature and Religion,

Unless Nature is God, and science can show us who and what God truly is. Then religions and attitudes against science are the devil-oriented ones.

I consider myself a Pantheist, and as such Nature and the universe is all together God. Science to me is the search for the answers to God's nature. To call science devil-oriented is then a form of derogatory expression to my faith.

however nobody has found any matter in the Dark Matter.

That's true, but scientists actually do know that the term "dark matter" is only a place holder for an unexplained effect. It's on purpose it's called "dark" because the "thing" we can't see behaves like matter, but we can't see it. We don't know what it is, but until we know what it is that behaves like invisible matter, we called it dark matter.

We have however seen how it affects things, so we know there is something there. What force it is, is yet to be discovered.

If I remember right, the reason they found this new force was when they calculated the spin of our galaxy. It shows that there must be a huge amount of more mass (matter) than we can see. So it was termed "dark matter". An alternative name would've been "invisible mass".

The scientific trust is not the fallacy of wishfull thinking. The scientific trust serves the interests of the author. It consists of following steps: 1. a referee felt, that this place in manuscript is doubt-full, 2. the referee suppots this feeling with logical argumentation, 3. if this argumentation is found, then the referee tries to find for the author the excuse within author's arguments in the paper, 4. if no excuse can be found, then referee rejects the paper.''

Opponent: ``Demons?!''

Me: ``I rest on Bible. I do not rest on different platform. So, you can not disprove me by blaming, that I do not use your platform. The knowledge of a person is defined as knowledge, which is based on his platform. The Biblical God and His Church is my platform. So, please, speak in my terms. There are two basic platforms: Existent God and non-existent idol. No more basic platforms possible. I chose the productive one. But others have chosen to go through methodological naturalism, which has led them to absolute solipsism: ``the universe should not exist'' (says Dr. Michio Kaku, YouTube).''

Since nature represents my belief of what and who God is, you should really have to accept and respect my "platform" as well and anyone who is a pantheist like me? Correct?

 

[shunyadragon]

Why is this thread in science and technology? We need a new category; Daemonology.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Simply my arguments (I have used laws of logic, you know) have made no impact on RF.

Why do you say "your argument" instead of answer our questions? May it be that the topics confuse you and you do not like being criticized for a paper that has no hold in truth?