The creator did it.

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have the same source of knowledge that is available to most people in most places - it's called education.

Science, as you know, tries to stay out of the god/no god argument. However, science has shown how you and I came into existence without resorting to GodDidIt.

There are 3 positions here:

• GodDidIt
• Science shows otherwise
• It is unknown

So what does education say?
Well, education says that it is cognitive relativism and that there are no privileged metaphysical positions.

So you want evidence, proof, facts, reason, logic and all that.
Well, it is rather simple. I will take it in steps.

Do you agree that neither of us caused the universe? Rather we are the result of the universe causing us as a process in time. space and other factors, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and so on?
I assume you agree.

Do you agree the experience you have, is the result of something else? I.e. if the conditions in your brain change; e.g. drugs, cancer, dementia and so on; your experience change? Do you agree that you have experiences, where are not caused by you, but rather the words "you" and "I" are placeholder words for natural processes in brains and that "you" and "I" are themselves epiphenomenological? I.e. the mind/consciousness itself is passive result of other process and that these other process are not under the control of the mind?
As a slogan: You don't control the universe. The universe controls you.

Okay, if you agree with all of this, then I got you and can show the 3rd positions: It is unknown,

The universe as appears to you, is independent of you for what it is in your mind. The rest of the universe in not you and you only experience it through your mind/consciousness, but that is caused by the rest of the universe and not under your control. As a slogan: You are thrown into existence and are just along for the ride.
So what is the rest of the universe as independent of your mind?
That is unknown, because you only know through your mind.
That is philosophy, Kant and "das Ding an sich".

And now I will explain to you what will happen next:

• You will ignore this post.
• You will claim that you can trust your senses and that the universe is fair and natural(a belief, which requires faith).
• You will use reason, logic and what not. How you think, does not determine what the universe is.
• You will claim that it is absurd and what not and irrelevant for everyday life. No, it is not, because you judge other people for their belief. This exchange in is everyday life and you claim a knowledge you don't have. Nobody knows what the universe really is.
• You will claim that I am wrong or what not. That is projection of your thoughts onto me and nothing but psychology and morality/ethics.
• You will negotiate and try to get me to agree with you based on how you think, because how you think is more reasonable, rational and what not. It is only reasonable, rational and what not to you, how you think and it is different to me.
• There may be more, but in general how you react to this post, is subjective and depends on how you think and feel, but how you think and feel, does not determine what reality really is.

So nobody know what reality really is and there is no method in science, philosophy or religion to give proof, evidence, probability or what ever for that. This has been known for over 200 years by those, who have learned that. So never ever claim education, because it is not that simple. For you to learn this and understand the limitations of knowledge, require that you have done so. You haven't and that is so for most humans. They don't need to learn this and it won't stop them for claiming a knowledge they don't have. That includes you.

So here is what the universe is in practical terms for knowledge: That it is fair and that you can trust your senses and thinking about it and learn to navigate in everyday terms. The joke is that because biological evolution gives rise to cognitive, cultural and moral relativism; i.e. subjectivism, we can't make everything objective, rational and what not, because we can all in the following sense get away with believe what ever we want to believe that the universe really is - we can all have metaphysical beliefs. It is not the God of the Gaps, it is that the universe plays a joke on you and me. It has given us these brains, that want to know what the universe really is and it has made us so, that we can't. I know that, because I have the education in that. You don't. That is it; I know the limit of knowledge and you believe differently. I know that I believe and you believe differently.

Science rests on the assumption for knowledge, namely that the universe is fair and natural. No evidence or what ever can be given for that and there are those, you including, who don't understand that.
That knowledge is conditional and not absolute, rests on the assumption that the universe is fair and natural. What I say, is
conditional and not absolute for the everyday life within methodological naturalism. I don't judge your beliefs as wrong or what ever. I just point out, that you haven't learned the limitations of knowledge, but that won't stop you just as it doesn't stop theists or everybody else, who claims knowledge about what the universe really is. With logic only one position can be not false, and you don't have the odds on your side. I know that and I know it for myself, so I have stopped being the type of atheist, than you are and have become religious. I believe in a fair universe, regardless of it being natural or supernatural. I am honest and you believe differently.

BTW what a word means:
Science:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Read it and learn. You have a culture, which influences, what you see and how you see it. I have it too, I just know that for both of us. I am a child of the post-modern: All knowledge are in some sense cognitively, culturally and morally relative.
You are in effect stuck in the early modern belief, that science works on the universe itself and I am stuck in the post-modern. See, I get culture. You live yours and haven't reflected on it. You take your culture for granted just as a theist does.

Yeah, I know how to turn your atheism of better knowledge on its head and turn it against you. Nobody has authority over the universe and that includes you and you can't judge another human using the universe as such. Theists can't and you can't. I know the limits of reason, logic, evidence, rationality and so on, because I have learned that.

We are equal as humans AND different as individuals in this universe, we apparently share. Learn both or I will call you out again. You don't have that kind of knowledge you claim over other humans. Nobody doesn't in practice. Learn that!!!

 

[ecco]

I am not just implying, I am stating that comments such as your...

So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being. You can argue all you want about what you think constitutes the source, but human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos, and is therefore an integral of it...hence such terms as religion and yoga....reunion, union.

...is an attempt to comingle science and woo with the result being more woo.

Let us take this slowly for you, is the Cosmos the ultimate source of these entities...you?..our planet? ..our star?..our galaxy?

Why do you want to take it slowly? Do you think I can't keep up with your profound woo? How ridiculous.

In your post, immediately above, you intentionally omitted the woo part that was in your original post (my emphasis):

human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos...
​

Why did you now leave out the nonsense woo about knowledge being a creation by the cosmos? Are you embarrassed that you made that assertion to begin with? Are you now trying to slip slide away from it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why do you want to take it slowly? Do you think I can't keep up with your profound woo? How ridiculous.

In your post, immediately above, you intentionally omitted the woo part that was in your original post (my emphasis):

human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos...
​

Why did you now leave out the nonsense woo about knowledge being a creation by the cosmos? Are you embarrassed that you made that assertion to begin with? Are you now trying to slip slide away from it?

Well, in a sense it is true. If you follow causation and don't do metaphysical free will, dualism and what not, then humans are a result of the universe as such(itself) and likewise with knowledge. Humans and their knowledge can't be outside the universe and thus in the end knowledge is a creation by the universe as such. In other words, if the natural laws, constants and so on didn't allow for knowledge, there would be no knowledge. So even in a natural world, if the natural world was different (QM, multiverse and that the universe supports human), there would be no humans and thus no knowledge.
Humans don't create knowledge out of nothing, humans do knowledge, because the universe supports it.

 

[ecco]

However, science has shown how you and I came into existence without resorting to GodDidIt.

There are 3 positions here:

• GodDidIt
• Science shows otherwise
• It is unknown

So what does education say?
Well, education says that it is cognitive relativism and that there are no privileged metaphysical positions.

Well, that's a good start, isn't it? The first thing you post is wrong. Actually, education/science says the Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains the origin of humans.

So you want evidence, proof, facts, reason, logic and all that.
Well, it is rather simple. I will take it in steps.

Do you agree that neither of us caused the universe? Rather we are the result of the universe causing us as a process in time. space and other factors, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and so on?
I assume you agree.

Do you agree the experience you have, is the result of something else? I.e. if the conditions in your brain change; e.g. drugs, cancer, dementia and so on; your experience change? Do you agree that you have experiences, where are not caused by you, but rather the words "you" and "I" are placeholder words for natural processes in brains and that "you" and "I" are themselves epiphenomenological? I.e. the mind/consciousness itself is passive result of other process and that these other process are not under the control of the mind?
As a slogan: You don't control the universe. The universe controls you.

Okay, if you agree with all of this, then I got you and can show the 3rd positions: It is unknown,

But, I don't agree with all of that. Furthermore, I have already shown that your conclusion is wrong.

The universe as appears to you, is independent of you for what it is in your mind. The rest of the universe in not you and you only experience it through your mind/consciousness, but that is caused by the rest of the universe and not under your control. As a slogan: You are thrown into existence and are just along for the ride.
So what is the rest of the universe as independent of your mind?
That is unknown, because you only know through your mind.
That is philosophy, Kant and "das Ding an sich".

Yadda, yadda, yadda

And now I will explain to you what will happen next:

• You will ignore this post.
• You will claim that you can trust your senses and that the universe is fair and natural(a belief, which requires faith).
• You will use reason, logic and what not. How you think, does not determine what the universe is.
• You will claim that it is absurd and what not and irrelevant for everyday life. No, it is not, because you judge other people for their belief. This exchange in is everyday life and you claim a knowledge you don't have. Nobody knows what the universe really is.
• You will claim that I am wrong or what not. That is projection of your thoughts onto me and nothing but psychology and morality/ethics.
• You will negotiate and try to get me to agree with you based on how you think, because how you think is more reasonable, rational and what not. It is only reasonable, rational and what not to you, how you think and it is different to me.
• There may be more, but in general how you react to this post, is subjective and depends on how you think and feel, but how you think and feel, does not determine what reality really is.

Well, you got one right. I claim that you are wrong. I did that based on your first quoted comment and my response.

So nobody know what reality really is and there is no method in science, philosophy or religion to give proof, evidence, probability or what ever for that. This has been known for over 200 years by those, who have learned that. So never ever claim education, because it is not that simple. For you to learn this and understand the limitations of knowledge, require that you have done so. You haven't and that is so for most humans. They don't need to learn this and it won't stop them for claiming a knowledge they don't have. That includes you.

So here is what the universe is in practical terms for knowledge: That it is fair and that you can trust your senses and thinking about it and learn to navigate in everyday terms. The joke is that because biological evolution gives rise to cognitive, cultural and moral relativism; i.e. subjectivism, we can't make everything objective, rational and what not, because we can all in the following sense get away with believe what ever we want to believe that the universe really is - we can all have metaphysical beliefs. It is not the God of the Gaps, it is that the universe plays a joke on you and me. It has given us these brains, that want to know what the universe really is and it has made us so, that we can't. I know that, because I have the education in that. You don't. That is it; I know the limit of knowledge and you believe differently. I know that I believe and you believe differently.

Science rests on the assumption for knowledge, namely that the universe is fair and natural. No evidence or what ever can be given for that and there are those, you including, who don't understand that.
That knowledge is conditional and not absolute, rests on the assumption that the universe is fair and natural. What I say, is
conditional and not absolute for the everyday life within methodological naturalism. I don't judge your beliefs as wrong or what ever. I just point out, that you haven't learned the limitations of knowledge, but that won't stop you just as it doesn't stop theists or everybody else, who claims knowledge about what the universe really is. With logic only one position can be not false, and you don't have the odds on your side. I know that and I know it for myself, so I have stopped being the type of atheist, than you are and have become religious. I believe in a fair universe, regardless of it being natural or supernatural. I am honest and you believe differently.

BTW what a word means:
Science:

More yadda, yadda, yadda

Read it and learn.

I have read and I do read, I have learned and I do learn. But not from you. When the first thing you write in a huge wall of words is demonstrably wrong, why should I, or anyone, take you seriously?

Yeah, I know how to turn your atheism of better knowledge on its head and turn it against you.
...
Learn both or I will call you out again.

I look forward to you making more attempts to turn anything against me. Again, I can learn nothing from you, because you have nothing to teach. All you can do is make large, mostly meaningless, posts. In this one, you failed right at the beginning.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, that's a good start, isn't it? The first thing you post is wrong. Actually, education/science says the Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains the origin of humans.

...

No it doesn't. It explains it if you accept the assumption/axioms it rests on. If you don't, you use another set.
Now what happens, is that if we compare to the different sets of axioms, we need a meta-set of axioms, but there is no meta-set. That is the problem. There is no Universal Truth; i.e. there is no meta-set of axioms.
What you are doing, is that based on your subjective set of axioms, you declare mine wrong in an objective sense. That is what you can't do. Neither can I, but I know that.
You are unable to question that you have a subjective set of axioms and that leads you to believe that it is a fact independent of your thinking that my thinking is wrong.

So here it is: You can't observe that I am wrong nor that my post is wrong. The word "wrong" has no observable referent. If there were no humans. there would be no "wrong" You are a product of your nature and nurture, but it works so well for you, that you don't need to question it and nor have you learned to do so.

So as long as you in effect insists on having an actual correct meta-set, I will continue to point out that it is not the case. If effect you can't see your own subjectivity. You are it and don't reflect on it, because you haven't learned it. That doesn't mean that you are wrong and that your posts are wrong. It means that they are only relatively right/correct/true and that I can do it differently. It is that, which you don't get as I get it. You get it differently, because you evaluate the difference as meaning I am wrong. You have no objective evidence for that.

You can never be wrong, just because I say so. You know that, but you think, I am wrong because you say so. So you could learn so understand how subjective words work, but you don't have to. Nor does a theist have to learn anything else as such.
Language and culture code the single individual to a certain understand. You and I are in some cases simply coded differently.

 

[gnostic]

Do you agree that neither of us caused the universe? Rather we are the result of the universe causing us as a process in time. space and other factors, physics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology and so on?
I assume you agree.

You were sort of doing well up to this point, then the rest of your post went downhills after this.

 

[ecco]

Well, that's a good start, isn't it? The first thing you post is wrong. Actually, education/science says the Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains the origin of humans.

No it doesn't. It explains it if you accept the assumption/axioms it rests on. If you don't, you use another set.

I accept the, as you call them, assumption/axioms. Science accepts the, as you call them, assumption/axioms.

Now what happens, is that if we compare to the different sets of axioms, we need a meta-set of axioms, but there is no meta-set. That is the problem. There is no Universal Truth; i.e. there is no meta-set of axioms.

You make a profound-sounding assertion like there is no "Universal Truth" and, for reasons only known to yourself, believe that to mean that scientific knowledge is worthless. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is supported by years of research in multiple fields of inquiry.

So as long as you in effect insists on having an actual correct meta-set, I will continue to point out that it is not the case.

I don't insist I have an actual correct meta-set of Universal Truths. How could I? No one can. Is that supposed to put to lie all the scientific knowledge we have? Are we to just throw up our hands in despair: Oh my, oh my, woe is me, and woe is us; we don't have an actual correct meta-set of Universal Truths - all is lost.


Oh, wait! There is salvation, after all. Let's just turn to woo. Within Woo we can find The Actual Correct Meta-Set of Universal Truths.

 

[ecco]

You know that, but you think, I am wrong because you say so.

No, I think you are wrong because science has accumulated a massive amount of evidence supporting ToE.

Thousands of scientists in multiple fields for over 150 years, disagree with your "don't know" conclusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I accept the, as you call them, assumption/axioms. Science accepts the, as you call them, assumption/axioms.



You make a profound-sounding assertion like there is no "Universal Truth" and, for reasons only known to yourself, believe that to mean that scientific knowledge is worthless. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is supported by years of research in multiple fields of inquiry.
...

No, scientific knowledge is neither useful nor worthless in itself. It is always useful or worthless to somebody.
Further I will give you 3 options:
Scientific knowledge is always useful to me, Mikkel.
Scientific knowledge is always worthless to me, Mikkel.
Scientific knowledge is sometimes useful and at other times worthless to me, Mikkel.

Now stop reading after this sentence and consider which one it is.

Now I will tell you. It is the 3rd one.
And now read this again:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Notice the start: Science is powerful.
I agree.
Notice the end:

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn't mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science.

Science knowledge tells us that morality is subjective. That is useless in the following sense to me, because it doesn't tell me how I ought to act as a human.
Remember science doesn't make moral judgments.

So now some philosophy. The Is-Ought problem.
Is: The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is functionally a fact.
Ought: Therefore I ought to behave how?
You can't answer that with science and you can't even with science say that it is wrong not to believe in The Theory of Evolution (ToE). How is that? Because it is a fact caused by how evolution work in humans, that a human can in fact not believe in the ToE.
So it is better to believe or not believe in the ToE. Science can't answer!

That is what I meant with a lack of Absolute Truth.
Science, philosophy nor religion can do Absolute Truth, because humans is in part subjective and what is useful and worthless is subjective.
I do accept the ToE as a fact and so what? That doesn't stop me from being religious. The natural world is full of religious humans. That is part of how the world works and you can't use science to say that is wrong.
Science tells you, that religion is a fact. I.e. it can be observed,
Religion is not supernatural, thus it is a natural fact.
And science doesn't do morality.

So if you are going to tell me, that religion is wrong, you can't use science to do that. Nor can you use science to know that I am wrong as a human nor that I think in a wrong manner. How? Because if you observe that my thinking is wrong or that I am wrong, then it is a fact and a fact can't be wrong. A fact is a fact. So when you say something or someone is wrong, it is subjective. It is wrong to you. Science don't do morality. You do morality without science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why do you want to take it slowly? Do you think I can't keep up with your profound woo? How ridiculous.

In your post, immediately above, you intentionally omitted the woo part that was in your original post (my emphasis):

human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos...
​

Why did you now leave out the nonsense woo about knowledge being a creation by the cosmos? Are you embarrassed that you made that assertion to begin with? Are you now trying to slip slide away from it?

There are those who may think your bluster is an attempt to avoid answering my question, I think they are wrong and you merely were a little rushed with all the other comments you are involved with at the time.

No need to rush if you are busy, but when you have time, I would appreciate your reply to the question...Is the Cosmos the ultimate source of these entities...you?..our planet? ..our star?..our galaxy?

Anyways, I promise you we shall get to the woo creation question you refer after you reply, thank your understanding, and for your sincere interest in my understanding,

 

[gnostic]

Science knowledge tells us that morality is subjective. That is useless in the following sense to me, because it doesn't tell me how I ought to act as a human.
Remember science doesn't make moral judgments.

So now some philosophy. The Is-Ought problem.
Is: The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is functionally a fact.
Ought: Therefore I ought to behave how?
You can't answer that with science and you can't even with science say that it is wrong not to believe in The Theory of Evolution (ToE). How is that? Because it is a fact caused by how evolution work in humans, that a human can in fact not believe in the ToE.
So it is better to believe or not believe in the ToE. Science can't answer!

That is what I meant with a lack of Absolute Truth.
Science, philosophy nor religion can do Absolute Truth, because humans is in part subjective and what is useful and worthless is subjective.
I do accept the ToE as a fact and so what? That doesn't stop me from being religious. The natural world is full of religious humans. That is part of how the world works and you can't use science to say that is wrong.
Science tells you, that religion is a fact. I.e. it can be observed,
Religion is not supernatural, thus it is a natural fact.
And science doesn't do morality.

So if you are going to tell me, that religion is wrong, you can't use science to do that. Nor can you use science to know that I am wrong as a human nor that I think in a wrong manner. How? Because if you observe that my thinking is wrong or that I am wrong, then it is a fact and a fact can't be wrong. A fact is a fact. So when you say something or someone is wrong, it is subjective. It is wrong to you. Science don't do morality. You do morality without science.

mikkel.

I am afraid you are comparing orange and elephant.

Science is divided into at several very broad classifications:

1. Formal Sciences (which include logics and mathematics)
2. Natural Sciences (which include physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy), but this has been subdivided into
   1. Physical Science
   2. and Life Science (all biology fields, such as molecular biology, biophysics, biochemistry).
3. Social Sciences (everything which include the studies of human behaviors (eg psychology), human cultures (history, archaeology, anthropology), human activities (eg political science, economics, laws, ethics)).

There are also some that may overlap to other areas or other fields. Two different fields may be interrelated.

For instance, palaeontology, the study of fossils require knowledge of biology (hence life science), where body remains can mineralized bones, teeth, tusks, etc into stone, which required some knowledge of chemistry and earth science (hence physical science).

Anyway, you talk of science don’t explore into morality. That’s not really true.

Yes, Natural Science (eg physics, chemistry) don’t cover morality, because it relate to human behavior and human activities of what being done is right or wrong, related to ethics, hence it would fall under the Social Science umbrella.

So when you talk of morality isn’t covered by science, then you are wrong, Social Science does include the study of human behaviors and activities, eg ethics and law.

Social Science include many different branches and different fields that either relate to cultures, how individuals or society behave towards each other.

But yes, most things in that fall under the Social Science umbrella, are subjective.

Natural Science as I said earlier can broken down into Physical Science and Life Science. Unlike Social Science, the only things that are science in Natural Science that hypotheses or theories, are

1. falsifiable, which mean that any explanation or predictions made can be potentially refuted or potentially tested;
2. can be tested by either observation or experiments (both are evidences), hence Scientific Method,
3. and ensured that data objectively support the theories or hypotheses are independently scrutinized and reviewed by other scientists working in the same or related fields.

Both physical science and life science required evidences to be tested, analyzed and reviewed against the explanation of theory or hypothesis.

Something like morality cannot be tested in the same way you do physics or chemistry experiments.

For instance, morality of different countries and different cultures may not be the same at all, when you compare them. There may be some common ground, but the things about morality, is that they are subjective. Morality may also differed with different religions, different sects, or religious morals vs secular morals, etc.

For instance, the 3 main Abrahamic religions believe in the same god, and yet they have different ways of dealing with thieves or with adultery. They have different ways to honor sabbath, and they are held on different days of the week. Two of them barred pork in the diets, while the other put pork back into the menu. The consumption of alcohol being banned or not banned. And so on.

Then if you were to compare Abrahamic morality to those of polytheistic people or secular groups, then you have more rules, more customs that may or may not be considered moral.

So, getting back to science and morality.

Can you possibly think of experiments for morality?

How would you test one’s moral of one culture against others?

And which morality would you use as your yardstick to compare with other morals?

Now do you understand why Physical Science or Life Science don’t involved with testing morality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

mikkel.

I am afraid you are comparing orange and elephant.

Science is divided into at several very broad classifications:

1. Formal Sciences (which include logics and mathematics)
2. Natural Sciences (which include physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science, astronomy), but this has been subdivided into
   1. Physical Science
   2. and Life Science (all biology fields, such as molecular biology, biophysics, biochemistry).
3. Social Sciences (everything which include the studies of human behaviors (eg psychology), human cultures (history, archaeology, anthropology), human activities (eg political science, economics, laws, ethics)).

There are also some that may overlap to other areas or other fields. Two different fields may be interrelated.

...

Your nature and nurture including culture are showing. So let us start from the top:
Logic!
Logic is not only the part of science, it is also a part of philosophy. So here is prior knowledge (there is logic), a question and the answer:
For the world, which you take for granted or rather the natural world; i.e. the assumption that the world is natural; I am going to ask the following question:
Is the world logical in that all of the world can be expressed in logical and coherent terms?
Now that is falsifiable and indeed the result is the falsification of the idea behind it.
It is simple, when I say "no" and I am going to think it, type it and now you see it:
No, the world is not logical in that world can be expressed in logic and coherent terms!

Now I am going to explain it, so just as you lecture me about parts of the world, I am going to lecture you. If you can do it, I can too and I will do it.
Something and something else are not coherent, if you can't express it with a logical AND.
That requires that we look at the history and culture of how logic is understood.
In today's world we operate with a duality of the model and the landscape. Science do models and then they test it against the landscape. That is absurd, because where are they doing that? In the model room or as a part of the landscape?
So here is my first assumption: The world is interconnected (no strong ontological dualism), yet it is not reducible to coherent logic. Scientists are a part of the landscape and science is a self-referencing act for which it can't give evidence for it core assumption nor apply coherent logic in toto.

How is that? Because of the ontological and psychological status of the 2nd classical law of thought/logic.
So here is Aristotles:

1. ontological: "It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect." (1005b19-20)
2. psychological: "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be." (1005b23-24)[14]
3. logical (aka the medieval Lex Contradictoriarum) [15]: "The most certain of all basic principles is that contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously." (1011b13-14)

It is Wikipedia, but here are the notes:

Łukasiewicz, Jan (1971) [1910 in Polish], "On the Principle of Contradiction in Aristotle", Review of Metaphysics, 24: 485–509
Whitaker, CWA Aristotle's De Interpretatione: Contradiction and Dialectic page 184
Peter of Spain (Petrus Hispanus Portugalensis): Tractatus

Notice something: It has 3 aspects and I will use the first 2:
The problem of logic, is that it is a part of the world in practice. It is done in the brains of some humans and in computers, which both are a part of the world. So, no, I don't believe that logic is not a part of reality, because to write that logic is not a part of reality takes places in the world. The act of thinking and communicating it, is taking place in the world.

So here is the first limit of applying logic: Logic is about something in time, space and some other respect. If reduced down to same time, same space and same respect you and I are different somethings and we can't be reduced to the same.
While we are both parts of the world and parts of the same world, we are not the same part.

That is it for the limit of ontology and logic together. You are as a part of the world X and I am not that X, I am Z and you claim X AND Z in the strong sense, but I just answer "no" and do my part differently than you do your part.
That is the existential absurdity of the limit of reason and logic. You can't explain all of the world with reason and logic alone, because I just answer "no".

So what about the psychology of logic? Well, your standard Internet atheist of the Enlightenment and Science will claim reason and logic in the end. They as atheists are not atheists as such, they are functionally rationalists in that they believe the world can be explained in logic terms alone in the following respect: For what all of the world is, they can do it coherently with strong logic.
When I point out that they can't, psychology kicks in. They are functionally unable to do reflected mentalization, meta-cognition and be actively self-reflected. They are unable to understand that reason and logic have a limit and that nobody can do, what they claim that they can do, including them.
They can't catch, hold and examine their own thinking. They take it for granted and are unable to doubt the limit of reason and logic in this sense.
Just like human mobility has its limits, because how the world is, reason and logic have their limits. Now here is the reduction ad absurdum on that "I am wrong". It goes like this, a standard Internet atheist either indirectly or explicitly claim
that my thinking is and/or I am wrong.
Notice the following. What he/she claims, is an objective fact based on a correct model of the world, reason, logic and evidence. E.g it is an objective fact, that I am wrong. So how can it be wrong, because a fact can't be wrong, because if a fact is wrong, it is not a fact, thus I can't be wrong. I am not wrong, because he/she is doing something else. It is a psychological projection of his/her individual thoughts, feelings and/or emotions onto me.

So yes, you can lecture about science: Etymology of the word "science":

mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens(genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").

science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary

What he/she don't get, is that for the individuality of the world I can separate the social "we" for the "I" and I don't need to be a part of his/her "we": WE, with reason, logic and evidence ...
I also to the effect answer: I am not a part of your "we", yet I am still a human.
I know that I don't need the group "we" of the standard Internet atheists and they really don't get it. They are unable to get it, because THEY do the world differently than me, so it is to them absurd that I can do it differently. What they don't get, is that it is subjective. It is absurd, nonsense, irrelevant, wrong and what not to them.

So gnostic, you can lecture about knowledge (science) and I just do it differently.
And, no!!! Nobody with neither science, philosophy and/or religion can do morality with Objective Knowledge. That includes some atheists no matter how much they magically invoke reason, logic and evidence. I just do it differently. That is the falsification of their world view and it is a reductio ad absurdum. That is how you do logic. You start be checking its limits. And it has limits.

I use science, philosophy and religion and if that means I am irrational, I don't care. I works for me and I don't jump out form high places and what not. I just make sense of the world differently that some atheists. We are both products of nature and nurture, but we are not just in the same respect. We are in some respects the same, in other similar and yet other different and they don't like that I am proud of the fact, that I am different. Because they want us all to be like them. And I just answer: No!!!

With regards

PS Logic is in one respect objective and another respect subjective. It is subjective, because in practice always takes place in time, space and in the following respect in an individual human .It is not that the world is logical, it is that humans behave with logic, but just like all other human behavior that has its limit. Just as I can't fly only with use of my body here on earth, no human can do logic alone for all of the world. I know that and these atheists don't. That result is cognitive dissonance in them when I point it out and they act subjectively. So do I when it comes to the limit of logic. I just do it differently.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

mikkel.

...
So, getting back to science and morality.

Can you possibly think of experiments for morality?

How would you test one’s moral of one culture against others?

And which morality would you use as your yardstick to compare with other morals?

Now do you understand why Physical Science or Life Science don’t involved with testing morality?

I ignored this part.
I am skeptic, but I am also something else:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
If you know, then good if not you ought to read, because it is better than me explaining it all.

So here we go:
Stage 3: The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

You can notice this even in adults in a related manner, they evaluate other humans based on their own approval of a given behavior in other humans.

Stage 4: The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

This one is a bit nor tricky, because some of the rules are not man-made laws, but rather how you avoid harm. Some atheists use: if you don't do like me, you will die by jumping out of window or similar examples.
Now some religious people use a man-made law in the name of God; if if you don't do like me, you will go to Hell. Both involve avoiding harm. BTW breaking the law can mean you go to prison, a form of harm.

So I am stage 5 or maybe stage 6. I am not sure of stage 6, but I am stage 5.
Stage 5: Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.
Stage 6:
Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.
E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

I doubt I am stage 6, but I get what it is about.

Hope it helps

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You were sort of doing well up to this point, then the rest of your post went downhills after this.

Read these about a part of science or don't:
A Boltzmann brain existing is more probable than our universe existing
Are you a Boltzmann Brain? Why nothing in the Universe may be real
Richard Feynman on Boltzmann Brains - Cosmic Variance : Cosmic Variance
Universes that spawn 'cosmic brains' should go on the scrapheap

TRUST your senses. Any theory that lets bizarre brains randomly pop into existence can’t be a valid description of the universe.

"TRUST your senses" and "...can’t be a valid description of the universe" combine the dogma of strong philosophical naturalism and so on.
The universe made me, so I can make sense of it(valid) and trust my sense(empiricism) and that is so, because I say so and it doesn't make sense to me otherwise. I decide what the universe really is based on my judgment.

You can see it here out in the open as quotes from Wikipedia from elsewhere:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

Versus:

An entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.

— Max Tegmark
"Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.", Tegmark M., Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):40–51.

Notice the second highlight - my judgment of what the universe really is, is true, because it makes sense to me based on the feeling of wasteful and the aesthetics of inelegant.

With regard

PS Science is not that simple as some people claim.

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

So which of all these scientists do you TRUST? Or do you TRUST something else?

 

[gnostic]

What he/she don't get, is that for the individuality of the world I can separate the social "we" for the "I" and I don't need to be a part of his/her "we": WE, with reason, logic and evidence ...
I also to the effect answer: I am not a part of your "we", yet I am still a human.
I know that I don't need the group "we" of the standard Internet atheists and they really don't get it. They are unable to get it, because THEY do the world differently than me, so it is to them absurd that I can do it differently. What they don't get, is that it is subjective. It is absurd, nonsense, irrelevant, wrong and what not to them.

So gnostic, you can lecture about knowledge (science) and I just do it differently.
And, no!!! Nobody with neither science, philosophy and/or religion can do morality with Objective Knowledge. That includes some atheists no matter how much they magically invoke reason, logic and evidence. I just do it differently. That is the falsification of their world view and it is a reductio ad absurdum. That is how you do logic. You start be checking its limits. And it has limits.

I use science, philosophy and religion and if that means I am irrational, I don't care. I works for me and I don't jump out form high places and what not. I just make sense of the world differently that some atheists. We are both products of nature and nurture, but we are not just in the same respect. We are in some respects the same, in other similar and yet other different and they don't like that I am proud of the fact, that I am different. Because they want us all to be like them. And I just answer: No!!!

Why do people immediately assume I am talking about “atheism” or taking side with “atheism”, whenever I talk about science?

Science isn’t atheism or theism, nor is it agnosticism or deism. They are all irrelevant with natural science.

Atheism only deal with the question of the existence of any deity, which they (atheists that is) don’t in...nothing more, nothing less.

There are no science in any definition of atheism.

Atheism is no more science than theism is science?

So why in the bloody hell are you bringing up atheism or atheists.

Where in my replies to you, did I ever mentioned atheism?

And btw, I am not an atheist. You are bloody stereotyping! You are no better than theists.

If you got beef with atheists, then don’t reply to me with your grievances against atheists, because I am not interested.

 

[gnostic]

Now I am going to explain it, so just as you lecture me about parts of the world, I am going to lecture you. If you can do it, I can too and I will do it.

Lecture away, mikkel.

But I must warn you, that I have no interests in any modern philosophies, because most of them are all talk with very little substances. They have the tendencies to bore me.

And I must also tell you that I even have less interests in “thought experiments”.

 

[ecco]

There are those who may think your bluster is an attempt to avoid answering my question

What question? This...

So the question arises...to what...the answer is.. the source of our being.

Was that a question? It is so poorly worded it's hard to tell. Can you rephrase it into a properly constructed English question?


In any event, you still have not addressed...

In your post, immediately above, you intentionally omitted the woo part that was in your original post (my emphasis):
human knowledge is not the source of creation, but a creation in itself, by the Cosmos...
Why did you now leave out the nonsense woo about knowledge being a creation by the cosmos? Are you embarrassed that you made that assertion to begin with? Are you now trying to slip slide away from it?

If you are still too embarrassed, I'll understand.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What question? This...

​

Was that a question? It is so poorly worded it's hard to tell. Can you rephrase it into a properly constructed English question?


In any event, you still have not addressed...


If you are still too embarrassed, I'll understand.

I see you are intentionally creating confusion about my clear simple question with irrelevant excerpts from earlier comments, this is disingenuous and unless you provide a relevant in context reply to the question, there is nothing more to say to you except that I'm not impressed with your character.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lecture away, mikkel.

But I must warn you, that I have no interests in any modern philosophies, because most of them are all talk with very little substances. They have the tendencies to bore me.

And I must also tell you that I even have less interests in “thought experiments”.

So funny. I get it. You use emotions and so do I. But yours count for what reality really is and mine don't because of reasons...

 

[gnostic]

So funny. I get it. You use emotions and so do I. But yours count for what reality really is and mine don't because of reasons...

I simply have no interests in philosophies, other than any role they may play in history development and historical backgrounds, especially in natural philosophy, which was the precursor to modern science.

Other than that, most philosophies are just talk...yada, yada, yada. There are so many of them, so they can’t be all right.

Some have some merits, but others don’t.

I do follow some philosophical positions, but I don’t follow just one, devoting all my times and energies on reading 400 or over 1000 pages on a single philosophy.

I am agnostic, but I don’t need to read Huxley or any agnostic philosopher’s books to be one. I am secular humanist, but again, I don’t need listen to days of lectures on that philosophy.

I am a realist, but only on certain matters that I faced in my life, but I don’t want to read book after book on the different types of realism out there.

All I need is a core summary of whatever philosophy that I might be interested in, because otherwise it is so damn boring to trudge through everything they say.

I got better thing thing to listen to or read some egotistical, long-winded philosophers who think how intellectual superior their philosophies or their own minds are.