Date:   3/20/2008 5:44:18 PM ( 17 y ago)
Hits:   9,033
URL:   https://www.curezone.org/forums/fm.asp?i=1136720

0 of 0 (0%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?

Golthing,
It is not clear where this discussion or argument is leading us, but at your insistence I shall answer your points in turn....................

You have said...............
"First of all, there is no consensus on what is science. THAT'S A FACT. Philosophers have argued over this subject for eons. Today we approach Science pragmatically at best. After studying the various philosophies, the only answer to each system is to be all-knowing. This would remove all human biases. Since no human is all-knowing, the only logical answer to our TREMENDOUS shortfallings is if someone who was all-knowing would simply relay the truth to us."

Firstly: there IS a consensus of opinion on what Science actually
is.................
According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of Science is "KNOWLEDGE attained through study or practice," or "KNOWLEDGE covering general TRUTHS of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method and which is concerned with the physical world."
Science then refers to a system of acquiring KNOWLEDGE. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
#1. Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
#2. Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.

Science then is NOT about being "ALL-KNOWING" (as you put it) but about the knowledge man has acquired so far, and which will continue to expand with the passage of time.
The answer to our shortcomings then, would indeed be if someone who was "all-knowing" could relay those absolute truths to us. Unfortunately, there isn't anyone or anything that could do this.
If you are referring to God as that entity, then that is to delve into the World of metaphysics, which for the most part is beyond the scope of science as it can neither be quantified or explained by the same. The God of the Bible is therefore a metaphysical entity............................

http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/metaph-body.html


************************************************************************

"Science has devolved recently. The focus of science is to seek the truth relating to our physical surroundings. In the past, man's mind was open to any possibility. If the scientific explanation happened to be metaphysical, then so be it. Now the scientific community has eliminated any possibility of metaphysical explanations. Only explanations from the physical realm are allowed. Should a metaphysical answer be the correct one, science will never be able to achieve truth."

Secondly: I would like to know to what and to whom Science has devolved?
The Scientific community has not rejected the possibility of metaphysical explanations, but has adopted the attitude of Laissez Faire as being unexplainable and beyond the scientific method.
Scientists believe in the here and now, the tangible and the measurable, and any possibility of there being a metaphysical answer being the correct one is conjecture at best, and has nothing to do with the absolute scientific truth.
**********************************************************************

"I didn't say Shelton's work was based on faith. I said your acceptance of his work is faith."

Thirdly: My acceptance of Sheltons work is most definitely not based on faith Golthing, but on his own personal & phenomenal success in the recovery of health with the chronically ill and terminally diseased, and whose life's-work has been corroborated by many many other health professionals. I suppose my own recovery from Leukemia, by following his protocol, was just based on faith then? I am not susceptible to faith-healing.

Fourthly: The concept of origins and evolution has never been accepted as fact: it is only a theory and promulgated as such. Science is observable fact; something that can either be quantified as observable and/or measurable: evolution does not fit this model and is therefore NOT science.
****************************************************************************

"So, along those lines, you did not share in Shelton's experiences. You didn't meet him. You didn't fast 60,000 people. Yet you take his writings by FAITH exactly like I take the timeless writings in the Bible. You put your Faith in Shelton's writings and they have proven themselves to you. I have put my faith in the Rock of Ages and it has repeatedly proven itself to me."

Fifthly: Golthing, I have shared and personally undergone his ideas, along with thousands and thousands of other people in the recovery of their health. That is JUST NOT BASED ON FAITH Golthing, but ACTUAL EXPERIENCE IN THE REAL WORLD.
The writings of the Bible however ARE based on faith, because you are not able to PHYSICALLY EXPERIENCE the events or occurrences within it.
****************************************************************************

"How do you know the earth is flat? How do you know that the earth wasn't flat until the day it was proved to be a sphere? We don't. It's only theory."

Sixthly: The Earth may well have been flat golthing, but along came science and discovered it was not flat, but a sphere. Science then is based on fact. You have just proved my point really.
***********************************************************************

Seventhly: Global warming or even global cooling are scientific hypotheses which have not yet been verified as fact by science, but almost all science is based on hypotheses, formulated by scientists as providing the best explanation for the effects observed. This is not faith, but offered as the best, rational, & coherent explanation of events.
************************************************************************

But golthing I only have the word of 66 books that these visits to Adam & Eve and others took place in history. As far as I know they could have been written as a novel, and are therefore fictitious. They are not verifiable.
The only reliable evidence we have is from Josephus, and that is quite sparse.
************************************************************************

People will die for any cause if they have the right mind-set, and doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. Todays Islamic fanatics are a good example of this.
*************************************************************************
As a final note, my own beliefs are based not only on personal experience, but that same experience shared by thousands upon thousands of others within the same field of health recovery and maintenance. A system based on physiology and the laws of Nature.


Chrisb1.

 

<< Return to the standard message view

fetched in 0.05 sec, referred by http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=1136720