The Best Evidence of a Creator is Also a Blow to Traditional Religion

[Left Coast]

I don't call it a methodology but I use logical reasoning to determine the truth or falsity of a claim. Don't you?

Logic in and of itself can't inform you of the accuracy of a claim, no (unless the claim is internally contradictory or something like that). You need data to determine if your claim accurately maps to the world outside your head. And you need a way (a method) of systematically collecting and analyzing that data. That's the framework science provides.

So if your belief was not arrived at scientifically, the question becomes, what method did you use?

 

[joe1776]

Logic in and of itself can't inform you of the accuracy of a claim, no (unless the claim is internally contradictory or something like that). You need data to determine if your claim accurately maps to the world outside your head. And you need a way (a method) of systematically collecting and analyzing that data. That's the framework science provides.

So if your belief was not arrived at scientifically, the question becomes, what method did you use?

I'm not a scientist, so no, my position was not arrived at scientifically. I used only logical reasoning throughout the process.

I will point out though that the science on this topic is plentiful. It supports my position (intuition) and there's none to support yours (reason).

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not a scientist, so no, my position was not arrived at scientifically. I used only logical reasoning throughout the process.

You don't need to be a scientist to apply scientific thinking. But this helps explain why your ideas are unfalsifiable, so thank you.

I will point out though that the science on this topic is plentiful and supports my position (intuition) and there's none to support yours (reason).

So far it doesn't appear so, and I don't know how in the world you arrived at that conclusion since you just admitted your idea is not the result of scientific thought.

To be clear, I don't doubt there's scientific research on intuition. The issue is your failure to realize that reason is necessary for intuition to occur. So your OP sets up a weird false dichotomy.

 

[joe1776]

You don't need to be a scientist to apply scientific thinking. But this helps explain why your ideas are unfalsifiable, so thank you.

In my world, which is less pretentious than yours, only scientists employ the scientific method. The rest of us use logical reasoning.

As for the term unfalsifiable. If we allow that it can be appropriately used in our debate, then you have been insisting this entire thread that my main premise was false. Now, in contradiction, you're labeling that premise unfalsifiable. How many posts will it take me to convince you that it can't be both?

To be clear, I don't doubt there's scientific research on intuition. The issue is your failure to realize that reason is necessary for intuition to occur. So your OP sets up a weird false dichotomy.

The issue is absolutely simple: The JUDGEMENTS of conscience are either the product of reason or intuition. The JUDGEMENTS, that final word on whether an action is moral or immoral.

Please do your best to understand that we are not concerned here with the fact that reason is necessary to supply the facts of the situation. We're only concerned with the final JUDGEMENT.

 

[Left Coast]

In my world, which is less pretentious than yours, only scientists employ the scientific method. The rest of us use logical reasoning.

Less pretentious? Pretentious people are ones who think science is only for ivory tower intellectuals and not the rest of us. Science has value for everyone.

Secondly, science incorporates logical reasoning. I already explained to you why you need more than logic if you want to accurately describe the world outside your imagination.

As for the term unfalsifiable. If we allow that it can be appropriately used in our debate, then you have been insisting this entire thread that my main premise was false. Now, in contradiction, you're labeling that premise unfalsifiable. How many posts will it take me to convince you that it can't be both?

It is possible for you to both be wrong about something, but also have the belief constructed in such a way that we can't falsify it. In fact, I think many, many religious beliefs are just so. Falsification doesn't make something true or false, it simply allows us to know whether something is.

Does that clarify your misunderstanding?

The issue is absolutely simple: The JUDGEMENTS of conscience are either the product of reason or intuition. The JUDGEMENTS, that final word on whether an action is moral or immoral.

Please do your best to understand that we are not concerned here with the fact that reason is necessary to supply the facts of the situation. We're only concerned with the final JUDGEMENT.

If the selected facts are relevant to the judgment (which obviously they are), then by definition the selection and analysis of said facts is part of the judgment process. Thus, you must morally reason to make a moral judgment.

 

[joe1776]

Less pretentious? Pretentious people are ones who think science is only for ivory tower intellectuals and not the rest of us. Science has value for everyone.

Secondly, science incorporates logical reasoning. I already explained to you why you need more than logic if you want to accurately describe the world outside your imagination.



It is possible for you to both be wrong about something, but also have the belief constructed in such a way that we can't falsify it. In fact, I think many, many religious beliefs are just so. Falsification doesn't make something true or false, it simply allows us to know whether something is.

Does that clarify your misunderstanding?



If the selected facts are relevant to the judgment (which obviously they are), then by definition the selection and analysis of said facts is part of the judgment process. Thus, you must morally reason to make a moral judgment.

We won't agree but that's OK with me. It probably is with you also.

When I post an argument in this forum, one of my reasons is to put it to a test. You did that for me and I appreciate it.

 

[rational experiences]

Science says to his own male self that he creates through invention.

That males who invented the sciences for humans, seeing they did, they still do today, have always applied it by self explanation, think self is the Creator.

And give creation a HE separation of self, because he used his thoughts to impose upon all natural and existing bodies that only exist right at this moment that he lives, owning his ability to look and see them and study them.

Then as a male consciousness penis owner, creator of his own child male self, who he wrote a story about being a Holy self and especial as compared to everything else, is totally ignored.

The reason is that half of his mind thinking he gave to design, irradiated self, gained a self destructive feed back in the vision of an alien, for he took the supporting God mass product, removed a whole body of its mass to produce his converted product.

Originally the theme science was based on ^ mountain tip in a researched mind vision...the design already existed in a mountain of mass of stone fused. He researched the flooded Earth saving of its own body. He also researched the UFO flat topping that mountain peak above the water line to a flat top mountain and the reaction ended.

Mass water evaporation made the Sun radiation attack go away, as the spatial vacuum also enabled the attack to cool.

History of the UFO Ark....a vision feed back just of that history of cause.

Therefore Earth as a body of natural evolution in space de evolved historically and its cold gas atmosphere was given back light, as gases burning. Gases burning prove that it is a status of evolution to a de evolution/removal as night time cold clear gases is our owned proof....highest body, coldest body.

So we know that the highest body cold clear gases never owned change, or evolution.....however it did as a gas mass own evolution to de evolution of its owned burning/removal.

What the mind psyche of a human is aware of, just as a thinker, an observer, the highest natural form of mind.....to not own destructive reasoning beyond that observation. Highest mind consideration.

Then you have the human scientific designer destroyer mentality, who by study of all of his researched observations, in agreement with his brothers did scientific machination invention. Which in observation also owns no machination volition.

So his designer owns no self volition...what he lies about. For if a human did not own control and operate that machine, then there is no designer actually in reality.....one of his many lies.

Another one of his lies is to try to convince humanity that a flying saucer or UFO was the Designer self of his origins. His first spirit he says that he needs to contact so that he has the total configurations of his own design. Yet when he talks about it, it only relates to his machine reaction.

How studying an inventor/designer science human self, demonstrates that a lot of lying manipulative coercion is occurring. Then he pretends that He, the male self pushing the buttons on his machine owns the information for the power of the Universe to resource from inside of his machine. And he really believes it.

Therefore in that form of human mentality you begin to reason that he really does believe that he is personally THE CREATOR, he infers male references in totality to that review in reference to self deism, males as a form of a God. The inventor/designer creator.

If that reasoning did not exist, then his brother who is trying to save us from him, would never have argued against him. It would just simply be accepted by everyone.

Part of the coercive reasoning involves transmitted mind coercive manipulation from feed back. So science studied both mind contact and mind control and already are science advised that it is manipulative. And they are possessed by its fake information, male owned, changed and interacted communicative false, claiming that it is his Creator. Yet the information involves his own gain of male human death.

What I have learnt as a spiritual healer psychic, reference of studying what healing and spiritual definition meant in human life. Which is just using a human brain/mind actually whilst you live. No different from any form of scientific research, accept I do not belong to any coercive group controls.

Therefore I learnt what the alien is. As males wanted to own and control the presence UFO mass for a scientific and mathematical conversion of the body of Earth O mass, and designed their theory, built their machination, the UFO changed.

As it cools in our atmospheric gas condition after being ignited into a heated removal of its owned cold radiation mass in space conditions, it sucks up our heavenly ownership for a bio existence support of life. In that event is a huge carbon outcome, involving our intake of gases into that body of mass.

What humans inferred to being a ship, what humans claim is a stealing/abduction of their spirit, as they are fed back the irradiation attack on their human bio life body at the same time as the irradiation event. Eventually the feed back of destroyed removed human life, due to interactive fall out attacks on our Nature, the image feeds back as a destroyed human male designer life.

As his opposition, actually in fact of referencing and determining what it means and why it occurred. For a human male and his brothers designed the causes their own human self. And those alien conditions are not our Creator.

What the scientific argument is about today, whether humanity is going to support the themes God was about the stone body mass O of planet Earth as perused by human being males or believe in our life attack/destruction by its alienation, as the ground nation gets irradiated converted in science invention.