Science cannot solve the final mystery

[Mock Turtle]

And being violently raped by a homosexual pedophile most certainly does result in certain victims becoming homosexual as evinced by my own brother's personal tragedy.

Adversus solem ne loquitor.

Anecdotes don't make for convincing science. Not know this?

Because further to this, I was sexually assaulted when a child but I didn't turn out to be a homosexual. See - anecdotes often cancel out.

 

[Audie]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Who does the "likes" and "winners" tells us more than
the post itself!

 

[Maximilian]

After coming out, yes. School wasn't very easy as the only gay kid.

I'm so very sorry to hear that. No one deserves to be treated with cruelty.

 

[Maximilian]

Anecdotes don't make for convincing science. Not know this?

Because further to this, I was sexually assaulted when a child but I didn't turn out to be a homosexual. See - anecdotes often cancel out.

I'm so very sorry this happened to you

 

[Maximilian]

You make it sound like that there are no Christians with ADS which obviously isn't true.

And research shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

Sadly, then, there is absolutely nothing that can establish the reality of God's necessary existence as an inescapable fact for these. It's akin to a person born blind attempting to enjoy the majesty of an exquisite painting or one whose never heard sounds their entire life trying to be moved by a sublime aria.

 

[Maximilian]

Would you give us a brief summary of this "philosophy of knowledge, and explain what it has to do with "good or evil, right or wrong, exquisite or hideous?"

Divine Education, for instance. The ancient people of Israel enjoyed such:

“All your sons will be persons taught by Jehovah, and the peace of your sons will be abundant.” -Isaiah 54:13

“Let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will instruct us about his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” -Isaiah 2:1-3

Christians in our present day benefit from the same-

Surrounding the exceptional comprehension his sedulous followers would gain, Christ himself expressed,“I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes.” -Luke 10:21

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You make it sound like that there are no Christians with ADS which obviously isn't true.

ADS? (Just kidding now - no offense intended)

Do you know what the worst form of OCD is? It's called CDO. It's the form that is so severe, one needs to alphabetize the letters.

• "I don't care who you are, that there's funny. Lord, I apologize for that one there, and please be with all the starving Pygmies down there in New Guinea."

Our friend, who feigns having medical knowledge, should have known that ASD is also an atrial septal defect to a physician, and avoided that ambiguous abbreviation.

 

[Maximilian]

Why do you say "the Atheist who rapes a little kid to death?" Why not the optometrist, Baptist or democrat who rapes a child? Do you think there is some philosophy that condones child rape?

Seriously? Atheists were behind the push that now results in millions of children in-utero being murdered every single year and they've also successfully pushed for men to be able to marry boys.

What's more weren't Danton, Lenin, Sanger, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito, Milosevic, Bonaparte, Mussolini and their cohorts oppressive, sadistic, democidal atheists who, collectively, murdered hundreds of millions of helpless men, women and little children?

 

[Maximilian]

Please explain this radical positivism. What are these assumptions that can't be verifies?

Take, for instance, the concept of induction. It just cannot be scientifically defended. Attempting to render a conclusive inductive line of reasoning for radical positivism is ridiculous as this begs the question by presupposing the legitimacy of inductive reasoning, to begin with!


All the more devastating is that radical positivism is self-refuting. At its heart, this pernicious conviction demands that we not accept any belief that cannot be scientifically verified. But what of that very supposition? It cannot per se be scientifically tested out much less corroborated. As a result, we ought not to believe it. Radical Positivism, as a result, asphyxiates itself.

 

[Maximilian]

Can you state your point, here? I'm not following.

Where did you get lost?

 

[Maximilian]

Please explain this radical positivism. What . . . do they have to do with morality?

Objective morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by its very nature, is morally nihilistic.

 

[atanu]

The incompleteness is *due* to the precision of the axioms and the fact that they don't change over time. Once we get to interactive systems, Godel's results simply don't apply. They also don't apply to second order logic (quantifying over properties instead of just objects).

When we change, then too the formal axioms and algorithms have to be resorted to. You cannot escape that.

 

[atanu]

I'm good with the idea that not all questions can be solved by science. We don't know that that is the case, but it may be, and if so, then people will be left with unanswered questions.

I suspect that your unstated purpose for noting the limitations of science is the usual one - to prop up religion as an alternate way of knowing about reality, a proposition I reject. .

I'm good with the red part. The rest of your response is not the subject of this thread.
...

 

[atanu]

Precisely, ask @Unguru what he actually meant

I understand Unguru very well. Despite being a scientist I do not understand science fans who think that the mental-sensual perceptions are the objective truths.

 

[ChristineM]

I understand Unguru very well. Despite being a scientist I do not understand science fans who think that the mental-sensual perceptions are the objective truths.

And i do understand how you can consider that religion knows more about scientific matters than science does. As i said, i see no religious peeps recieving a nobel prize for providing an unknown answer. Yet Unguru claimed they know. Interestingly he has not responded to my challenge.

So back your original question, "what logic"... allows religious guesswork and blind faith outweigh science on science?

 

[Polymath257]

When we change, then too the formal axioms and algorithms have to be resorted to. You cannot escape that.

Actually, that is part of the thing here: there are no such formal axioms for physics. Only math and logic (so far) have formal axiom structures. And the fact that there are (informal) mechanisms for changing our views of physical laws makes them NOT an axiomatic system at all.

Furthermore, it is clear that many physical laws are based in second order logical (properties of properties) and are thereby not subject to the Godel results.

So we have two aspects that avoid the Godelian issues: lack of a formal axiom system (especially one that is recurrently defined) and second order logic as opposed to first order logic.

 

[Polymath257]

And research shows that 'high functioning autism is an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'

Sadly, then, there is absolutely nothing that can establish the reality of God's necessary existence as an inescapable fact for these.

If it can't be shown\, then it isn't an inescapable fact. It is an opinion.

It's akin to a person born blind attempting to enjoy the majesty of an exquisite painting or one whose never heard sounds their entire life trying to be moved by a sublime aria.

Both the blind and the deaf can understand the relevant concepts and even test physically for the existence of light and sound. No, they cannot experience these phenomena, but they most certainly can be convinced of them.

What your article shows is that those on the autistic spectrum are less likely to believe in a deity or they will create their own version of spiritual beliefs. That is hardly making the case that they *cannot* be convinced. It only shows that they have not been convinced. And that may well be because the are less subject to leaping to conclusions than others.

In other words, they may well be experiencing reality more accurately and not less so.

 

[Polymath257]

Autism is not a neurological disorder? Since when?

That is not what I claimed. It is a neurological condition. Whether it is simply a different way of thinking or a disorder depends a bit on your value system.

 

[Polymath257]

And being violently raped by a homosexual pedophile most certainly does result in certain victims becoming homosexual as evinced by my own brother's personal tragedy.

Adversus solem ne loquitor.

Or maybe it makes them less likely to bow down to the way society pushes them. So they are more inclined to actually be who they are rather than playing the game.

Your brother being abused is a tragedy. His being gay is not.

 

[Polymath257]

Because, fundamentally, they can't understand it like they can't understand metaphors or another person's suffering.

That is only for those on the extreme end of the spectrum. For those with a less severe condition, it may well allow them to see things more clearly.

Again, your own article mentions that even those with several autism may well be religious: they simply make up their own religion.

So, let's get to it. Why is it that an inability to understand metaphors makes for a disbelief in deities? Could it be that autistics are generally less willing to put up with unsupported, vaguely defined, and not logically supported ideas?