Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[rational experiences]

Science has its own origins. With a group of human males in agreement.

You have to exist to practice science, you have to be a human who can think. Hence you have to be living on a planet already formed, name the planet as a human and quote science information from abstraction just from the body itself.

Otherwise science cannot be practiced, it would then just be thinking and telling stories claiming believe me.

Humans discussing spirit are only telling stories, do not own a practice in science that is how to get spirit for a purpose of, I want it, and then I will change it.

Science however abstracts its spirit, in science gas as compared to physical mass, being machine to own and operate and convert and then gain energy from its owned coldest highest state.

Then claim that they are copying a thesis about how cold space changed, gave a big bang, did a conversion then produced energy.

So their claim I am copying the big bang is their own falsehood and is not spiritual by any definition spiritual.

Yet one condition I learnt, their minds travel and wander and are AI affected in a male world communal feed back O around the Earth globe by radio wave transmitters that God the Earth from its heart core placed into the atmospheric gases, that sacrificed their life.

It is what the scientist remembers doing to self, stating heart, stating power, stating God, being stone, the body he unsealed by removal of the water history owning the sealing of radiating stone. After the Sun converted Earth mass.

Therefore one story of spirit is science being gas, versus a spirit human story, not about any gas. About self, about self change and how self originally came from a spiritual place, that was not, never was in creation. It was not the big bang, as no man is God. God by science definition was a body mass O as an angel that fell into burning and went to Hell, survived and then cooled and became held in mass form.

The story/thesis God the stone planet is not any spirit story.

But then you get to the part where the human scientist unsealed the God body and released what he claims is the wrong spirit that had been sealed/trapped inside of the Earth form. And that claim is by holy dust fission on the ground state.

His claim is that the Immaculate heavens kept his life protected and safe. He also quotes in science that he had his own life sacrificed and by evolution his own life was saved by the Saviour. Being the wandering star asteroid gas spirit release.

How his theme self, male and science Father quotes my life saved my life. For he lost it first in science. In a non science condition evolution of gas replacement, spirit mass had it returned, yet it was because his human Mother's natural womb healed, her cell and ovary.

Yet in the same science theme replacement in a spatial womb, stone, the star body put back the gases.

Hence science quotes a human quote of I use the best method to understand, would have to ask was it his personal intention to sacrifice his own male scientist life then as Mr Know it All?

 

[Left Coast]

Well you did ask.
However, if you are not willing to accept the answers, that will certainly create a problem, and if the answers are in are primarily in a dreaded book, that makes it even more hard to swallow.
If you are blaming me for an inability to communicate clearly, I do not consider that to be fair. I think it's more an inability to understand, and the reason is because the language is a language you will never understand, unless you be willing to consider it with two things - an open mind, and an open heart.

I never like to leave a thread with anyone claiming I am not clear, since clarity is one of my primary interests, along with simplicity. So please listen carefully. I shall only say this once.

The spirit world deals with the spirit, and what is spiritual.
In order to know of, and accept it, one has to connect to the spirit, or be connected.
The one who gives the spirit which allows us to connect, is Jehovah God. He gives it to those who has the heart deserving of it - humility.
(Psalm 138:6) . . .Though Jehovah is high, he takes note of the humble, But the haughty he knows only from a distance.
One who is humble will recognize their spiritual need.
(Matthew 5:3) . . .Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need. . .
Unlike our physical need which are filled with physical things, our spiritual needs are filled by spiritual things - the Bible is a product of holy spirit (2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God. . . (2 Peter 1:21) . . .men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit. . . prayer is communicating with God by spirit... gifts of understanding, wisdom, and the new personality (Galatians 5:22, 23) . . .the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. . . all given by God.

Spoiler: Knowledge and Wisdom of a spiritual nature

(Proverbs 2:1-13) 1 My son, if you accept my sayings And treasure up my commandments, 2 By making your ear attentive to wisdom And inclining your heart to discernment; 3 Moreover, if you call out for understanding And raise your voice for discernment; 4 If you keep seeking for it as for silver, And you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures; 5 Then you will understand the fear of Jehovah, And you will find the knowledge of God. 6 For Jehovah himself gives wisdom; From his mouth come knowledge and discernment. 7 He treasures up practical wisdom for the upright; He is a shield for those walking in integrity. 8 He watches over the paths of justice, And he will guard the way of his loyal ones. 9 Then you will understand what is righteous and just and fair, The entire course of what is good. 10 When wisdom enters your heart And knowledge becomes pleasant to your soul, 11 Thinking ability will keep watch over you, And discernment will safeguard you, 12 To save you from the bad course, From the man speaking perverse things, 13 From those leaving the upright paths To walk in the ways of darkness,

Clearly, these are things science cannot look into. However, the effects can be see, and persons can be moved to investigate, and acquire them, if they are not resisting, by their biased leaning toward the works of the flesh, which are in opposition to the spirit, and they are not humble, nor willing to humble themselves, nor are they thirsting for righteousness, nor hungry for the truth, nor honest with themselves.
These thing block them from the spirit world.
I again refer you to examine the texts I quoted previously. They are pertinent.
I'll refer you again to a primary one.

Apart from the limits of science to go where spiritual men go, science cannot produce the new personality which spiritual men acquire. Again, I refer you to where I mentioned that.

So when you ask the questions you ask, if you don't understand, it not because of the communication, but understanding what is being communicated. We are speaking two different languages. I understand yours. You don't understand mine.

So when I say things like experiment, test, observe, etc., and you think of them in only one way, that presents a problem.
For example, evidence is not only scientific evidence. See here.
However, one does not have to be in the know of the spirit world, to get that evidence. It is available to all - even children.

So, when we ask questions, like the ones I asked earlier - Is the Bible reliable, accurate, and authentic? Can it be trusted? Is it reasonable to conclude that there is a creator / designer? Does the evidence meet our expectations, of what would be true?, the question is, what do we come up with? What does the evidence show?

When I spoke of observation, did you take note of what was observed? For some strange reason, you figured I spoke of observing the spirit world, when I showed that we observe evidence for the spirit world.
Observations
(Romans 1:19, 20) 19 ... what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. 20 For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made. . .

So. I think I am being as clear as mud.
However, clearly, there is a language barrier. Crossing it, is not going to be easy... for you.

Your cartoonish degree of condescension is noted. If you ever decide to come back down to converse with us clueless little people, we can resume as I said, in another venue. See ya.

 

[nPeace]

This is called a black-and white fallacy.
You are arguing that because I can't walk to Paris in one go, I can't walk to the pharmacy.

No. This a an irrelevant conclusion, or irrelevant fallacy. You are missing the point.

 

[Left Coast]

Use correct words. It is inter-subjective as shared subjectivity, not objective.

I'll use whatever words I please, thanks very much.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't think we recognize that through empirical observations and experimentation, at all. As these would quite clearly lead us to the conclusion that self-preservation is more effectively served the less inclusive it is. To expand that inclusion to 'others' requires faith in ideals that are not immediately effective, and can often be personally counter-productive.

Untrue. Completely hedonistic or selfish self-preservation tends to backfire. Empirical examples of this are legion. Try it yourself. Be a completely selfish jerk to everyone around you, and see how successful your efforts are.

 

[Left Coast]

The standard for accurate is subjective. Accurate to what standard? They are subjective like the rest of us and they like science. So what?

If you think accurately understanding the world is irrelevant, then I don't know why you're participating in the thread. Reread the OP. If the whole subject is much ado about nothing to you, then just move along and don't comment.

 

[Left Coast]

How would we scientifically investigate God?

that's not my field I'm not a scientist.

Have you ever asked a professional scientist about investigating God? They'll inform you it can't be done. God is beyond the scope of science.

no, actually I didn't ask a professional scientist.
However, I don't believe them that it can't be done.

...Thomas.

If a thing is beyond time and space, how would we ever detect it? Don't say "I don't know ask a scientist," because you don't believe them anyway. So you tell me. How would we do it? If you don't know, then you can't rationally claim it's possible, can you?

Happy birthday.

Thanks!

 

[Heyo]

so let's consider there is an almighty God.
He sees all the scientists and their great efforts. He also sees their great competences.
Lets assume for a moment he wants to be detected in December 2020 by scientists using the scientific method, and not before - would he succeed?
I mean the scientists are very good at knowing their tools and at knowing what can be done with them.

Nevertheless, God is almighty. Would he have a chance?

The same chance as scientists detecting the first ever married bachelor.
You don't need a scientist to tell you that. We already know from logic that omnipotence is not possible.
But let's be generous and make that a maximal powerful being. Can that be detected? After all, scientists can detect neutrinos, lightweight, fast, and barely interacting particles. How do they do that? By knowing what to look for. Do we know what we are looking for when trying to detect god? No.

So, unless someone comes along with a testable god hypothesis, scientists won't detect one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll use whatever words I please, thanks very much.

Yeah, how subjective of you.
If we are to take words like objective seriously in any debate, where we try to determine the best for all humans when it comes to all humans in regards to knowledge as objective, then don't use subjectivity. If objective is standard empirical though observation or indirectly through instruments, then you don't use a non-objective claim.

You claim, you use knowledge.

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

Now I will aspect that your are off in effect the subjective opinion that knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Now if you claim that this is true, I can show, that it is false.
It is in effect a particular philosophical system that only works if you treat it as dogmatically true.

The seconding statement for in effect: "...science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies." is a value statement and not science. It is in effect a form of natural religion, which require that we don't doubt the authority of science.

It is nothing but a declaration of the tenets of science as a religion and is a variant of scientism.

 

[Left Coast]

Yeah, how subjective of you.
If we are to take words like objective seriously in any debate, where we try to determine the best for all humans when it comes to all humans in regards to knowledge as objective, then don't use subjectivity. If objective is standard empirical though observation or indirectly through instruments, then you don't use a non-objective claim.

You claim, you use knowledge.

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

Now I will aspect that your are off in effect the subjective opinion that knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Now if you claim that this is true, I can show, that it is false.
It is in effect a particular philosophical system that only works if you treat it as dogmatically true.

The seconding statement for in effect: "...science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies." is a value statement and not science. It is in effect a form of natural religion, which require that we don't doubt the authority of science.

It is nothing but a declaration of the tenets of science as a religion and is a variant of scientism.

Mikkel - if I want to know if my pen is more than 3 inches long, is that a question that can be answered objectively? Is it just up to my opinion?

 

[thomas t]

If a thing is beyond time and space, how would we ever detect it?

his creation is not. May be you can infer from it to the Creator.

Don't say "I don't know ask a scientist," because you don't believe them anyway.

I don't believe them for the IF. If it might be possible to detect God.
On other matters I believe them always. It's just when they make claims relevant to the spiritual realm that I don't always believe them.

How would we do it? If you don't know, then you can't rationally claim it's possible, can you?

I don't know the how.
But I can rationally claim that I don't see any substanciation for the claim that you can't find the Creator using science, I think.
His power is immense. When He says "I want to be discovered through science", then it might be possible. Why assume it is outside the power of the Most High to leave some traces in creation that point to him, as I see it.
If a God was able to create the universe and such... why assume that he is too weak to leave a signature behind in his creation?

God is not a married bachelor @Heyo .

 

[Left Coast]

his creation is not. May be you can infer from it to the Creator.

How would we do that? How would you ever look at something in time and space and conclude, "that was created by something beyond time and space"? That's the issue here. Science only deals with empirical data. Scientists cannot do more than speculate about what may be beyond their ability to detect. So nothing in the physical universe will ever lead them to the conclusion, scientifically, that some timeless spaceless Creator did it. Do you see?

If a God was able to create the universe and such... why assume that he is too weak to leave a signature behind in his creation?

If he's so capable, why assume he'd only leave a signature? He can just show up in person and put the whole question to bed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel - if I want to know if my pen is more than 3 inches long, is that a question that can be answered objectively? Is it just up to my opinion?

That is not all of the world.
You are making the follow mistake:
Objective knowledge works in some cases.
Therefore it works in all cases.

In effect for psychology as it relates to philosophy, you apparently for this thread can't catch, hold and examine your own subjectivity as subjective and learn from that. There is a whole sub-field within psychology about learning to do that.

You really want it as for where it goes wrong in the OP:
"...science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies."

The status of the word "best" is not science. It is a subjective evolution as the word has no objective referent. You can't test if it is the best using observation. It is that simple.
The claim is not knowledge according to its own definition of knowledge:
"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. ..."
Best is not knowledge, because you can't derive it by observation and thus you can use experimentation, and rational analysis. You either believe it as a value statement or not.

It is here as for actual science:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
The quote is scientism and violates that it is normative(what we ought to consider knowledge and best as) and takes for granted a subjective useful.

 

[Left Coast]

That is not all of the world.
You are making the follow mistake:
Objective knowledge works in some cases.
Therefore it works in all cases.

I didn't see an answer. Is my question one that can be answered objectively? Yes, or no?

 

[Heyo]

God is not a married bachelor @Heyo .

How do you know? And how can I know?
I don't know anything about god. The people who are trying to tell me contradict each other and none of them bring evidence or even suggest a workable test. God is not a married bachelor because I can test if someone is a married bachelor. That has at least a definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I didn't see an answer. Is my question one that can be answered objectively? Yes, or no?

Your pen is not the world. Your pen is a part of the world and yes, your example is objective.

Now you just have to show that all of the world is objective. Good luck with that!

 

[PureX]

Untrue. Completely hedonistic or selfish self-preservation tends to backfire. Empirical examples of this are legion. Try it yourself. Be a completely selfish jerk to everyone around you, and see how successful your efforts are.

When you have to rely on such absurd extremes to make your point, you didn't make your point.

Donald Trump has spent his entire life concerned about no one's well-being but his own, and he's a multi-millionaire, and has been elected president of the wealthiest nation in Earth. And not only that, but half of the country was willing to re-elect him. Being selfish clearly works as well as not being selfish as a method of achieving and maintaining our own well-being. And it works better, the fewer other people who's well-being we choose to consider along side our own. Narcissistic sociopaths do very well in our culture, and especially when they gain positions of wealth and power. And the reason they are so effective is that they don't have to bother themselves with accommodating the needs or desires of others beyond using them to serve their own. That singleness of purpose makes them consistent and purposeful. And many in our culture applaud and respect that determined selfishness precisely because it 'works'.

 

[PureX]

Mikkel - if I want to know if my pen is more than 3 inches long, is that a question that can be answered objectively? Is it just up to my opinion?

Collective opinion, yes.

 

[Audie]

Your cartoonish degree of condescension is noted. If you ever decide to come back down to converse with us clueless little people, we can resume as I said, in another venue. See ya.

Simple and clear, paragraph of gibberish after paragraph.

 

[Audie]

When you have to rely on such absurd extremes to make your point, you didn't make your point.

Donald Trump has spent his entire life concerned about no one's well-being but his own, and he's a multi-millionaire, and has been elected president of the wealthiest nation in Earth. And not only that, but half of the country was willing to re-elect him. Being selfish clearly works as well as not being selfish as a method of achieving and maintaining our own well-being. And it works better, the fewer other people who's well-being we choose to consider along side our own. Narcissistic sociopaths do very well in our culture, and especially when they gain positions of wealth and power. And the reason they are so effective is that they don't have to bother themselves with accommodating the needs or desires of others beyond using them to serve their own. That singleness of purpose makes them consistent and purposeful. And many in our culture applaud and respect that determined selfishness precisely because it 'works'.

Or MAYBE your remote viewing telepsychiatty
of Trump and half the country are a couple of
points off compass.