Question by Cliff Harris: This needs to be rewritten for smaller attention spans but.. how?
And references to any disutes you have arguing anything about this

Science is philosophy that passes the scientific method but eventually gets disproven anyway when new evidence is discovered

For science to determine any absolute truth, it must have at least 1 absolute truth to compare other factors to. Yet there are no absolute truths it has to compare anything to, so is science a philosophy without any truth? yes. that is exactly what it is.

It is not that science lacks the proper method… in fact anyone who has absolute knowledge of every factor in existance from the infinitely smallest to the infinately greatest detail of everything can use science to reveal absolute truths, Although if we had all that knowledge, what good would that method to learn what we already know be? because we know everything anyway

Human beings lack the capacity for such knowledge. However to pretend we do is to pretend we are the Supreme Beings of the universe. but isn’t that really what Atheism is really about? pretending you are gods? waste of time that is.

So now that we have established that there is not one single absolute truth in all of science, lets examine their claims of truth that simply cannot be true, as science once again can’t give any truths.

Science can’t prove God exists, therefore God does not exist.
God is not required for life to spontaneously begin.
The universe was created by the big bang
the universe was created by random chance
there are other universes that were created that this universe came from
people evolved from monkeys
species evolve

These are all claims made by “scientists” using a method that doesn’t give any truths, just philosophies

once again, there are absolutely no truths that come from science.

Now you may ask, “well the modern technology comes from science, and it is true that it exists” yes, but they have no idea what the workings are of the sub atomic existance, or the formations of the quarks, or fluxuations of the energy of the electrons that make it work. they don’t make any absolute statements. It is a work from trial and error, there is no absolute knowledge involved in modern technology, and it is safe to say they really have not even .00000000000000000000000000001% of the absolute truth on why the modern technology works. All scientific athiesm is based on 1 form of science called “metaphysics” and 1 form of mathematics called “probability”. Metaphysics means “beyond physics” meaning in the realm of the imagination and can’t be proven or even tested. The mathematical probability is what makes the imaginative ideas seem possible. no matter how untrue something is, as long an a philosophy is imagined that makes an event is even .0000000001% possible, it is not true or untrue. So metaphysics and probability when used together are a dangerous combination that form the foundation of all athiestic beliefs which are for the sole intention of pointing away from truth. And ther we have it. Any athiestic belief is unravelled by removing all statements based on metaphysics and probabilty. With these truths layed out, given that athiesm is believed by many to be an absolute statement using the science to say “God is not real and here is why”, it should be rephrased “God is not real, and here is why they believe why” which provides a much better way of saying ” we scientists have no truth, just philosophies”

How much of your life have you wasted on evolution making decisions based on it and imagining new philosophies to reenforce the false concept?

Atheism is a game of “where did everything come from if not by God?” being answered by philosophers undermining all the rules of science by using metaphysics and mathematical probability to make their philosophies seem possible.

Truth is based on statements made by God Who has absolute knowledge.

God set up a perfect system of justice where the punishment for sin is eternity in hell. Which is the way you want it, or you’d have very bad people doing very bad things to you for the rest of eternity since they’d be in Heaven with you for eternity. There are 2 who can take the punishment for your sins. One is Jesus Christ, and the other is you. God does not want any of us to go to hell so he came to the earth to offer us a way of getting to Heaven and having our hearts made pure at the same time. He prophesied over 2,000 very unique manners – impossible for any man except Himself to accomplish.- of which the Messia Jesus Christ would come to the world and bring Salvation and Goodness to all who would accept Him. Some of these impossible for anyone except God to accomplish include being born of a virgin, raising the dead, and hundreds of other miracles. And then for He Himself to be raised from the dead. These prophies were so the world would know who He is when He comes. It was also prophesied that the Hebrews would not all know. and He cares about
ok natural philosophy *was* science until the end of the 1800′s it meant philosophy based on natural law. then they decided to stick the scientific method into it which meant philosophy based on the scientific method, making it ‘scientific fact’ or ‘empirical’ but still gets disproven the moment new evidences disprove it, making it a disproven philosophy
it is philosophy even before it gets disproven and science is just natural philosophy that was renamed after the end of the 1800′s until then science just came from the latin word scientia meaning knowledge. not true knowledge or false knowledge just knowledge ‘philosophy’
midnite the point is only valid to many when explained
oh yeah aliens are a product of metaphysics too
as are ufo’s and star trek
what you would call aliens are nothing of the sort per say. They did not evolve on other planets. In fact i think the entire post modernism star trek mind set is going to get the non Christian world to do something very very very bad… if only you knew…. you need to come out of the british philosophy that makes people think evolution is real and God it not
revelation 20 verse 7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be freed from his prison. 8He will go out to deceive Gog and Magog, the nations at the four corners of the earth, and gather them for war. They are as numerous as the sands of the seashore. 9They marched over the broad expanse of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. Fire came from God[a] out of heaven and burned them up, 10and the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet were. They will be tortured day and night forever and ever.

Best answer:

Answer by ktron
Magic isn’t real.

Give your answer to this question below!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by : Can you please explain this?
Medieval scientists and philosophers called alchemists were the predecessors of modern day chemists. Many of them tried to transform lead into gold. Explain why they never succeeded. Thank you!

Best answer:

Answer by K
Basically because they did not have a particle accelerator to alter the necessary subatomic particles.

It can be done now but is not economic

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa050601a.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

What do you think? Answer below!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by Analyst: What are your thought on this text?
It all begins with the ‘I am’.
The most self-evident of all truths, that ‘I’ signifies something distinct and unchangeable, is not just under dispute in the modern world; it is rejected by default. According to the inter-subjectivity of today’s researchers, genes and environment are the only factors to explain who you are; as if we’re some sort of biological robots without the presence a free will.
The fact that we have a conscious experience of this life cannot be explained by modern science; it is a phenomena in-itself (no, this is not a reference to Kant). Even the (seemingly) anti-spiritual English philosopher, Bertrand Russell, accepted this, but managed his headache by claiming that beyond the recognition of its existence, no further analysis was possible (my interpretation, not an exact quote).
If there is no free will, there can be no meaning of life beyond what our senses has to offer. To the truth seeker, the idea that this life is mainly about survival and earthly pleasures, is simply unbearable. The superficiality of the mundane way of living, the futility of social ambition, and the lack of independent thought, repels him/her so strongly, that almost any alternative path of life, no matter how riddled with uncertainty, is regarded as a better alternative. -As long as there is some justified hope for an elevation to a higher level of consciousness. Even chaos is preferred to the horrors of total stagnation.
Emotional numbness and mental stagnation are connected as plague and fever. No truth seeker can be anything but hypersensitive (not to be confused with hysteria, which is a form of social manipulation). He/she observes more, sense things stronger, and is easily caught up in an emotional turmoil. This makes him/her, needless to say, vulnerable.
Most people refuses to see the distinction between weakness and vulnerability. Weakness is to choose the wrong path when you can choose otherwise. If your vulnerability is overrun, you’re out of options. Every effort will just make you sink deeper down. Weakness is related to will, vulnerability is how much your system can handle.
A truth seeker is strong in the true sense of the word. He/she takes on the most formidable task of all; to acquire a genuine insight in the self and the universal purpose it was put here to serve. The everlasting search for meaning, the rejection of hypocrisy, and the primus motor for all of his/hers endeavours: The belief in a sharp distinction between good and evil.
Evil is ultimately the lack of will to understand.

Best answer:

Answer by hamihum
cute

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by Labatt113: So does this say there is a god or at least a soul?
I will spare you of all the interesting history on the pineal gland I do suggest researching it in modern times and back to the great philosophers etc.

1)You pineal gland is what allow you to dream.
2)In the growth of a baby in the womb for the first 50 days the pineal gland is most active.
4)Upon death your penal gland empties all that interesting fluid(DMT) out in your brain.

Now if you have any idea about the pineal gland and DMT or even not that should say something as an entry and exit point. What do you think?

Best answer:

Answer by lollipop
Grasping at straws, comes to mind. But don’t give up your search.

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by Ronald R: Who was this philosopher?
He stated that value was created by 4 things, all of which are caused or related to the consumer as opposed to the producer as Karl Marx said?

I think he’s a modern 20th century philosopher who might have already passed away.

Best answer:

Answer by Naguru
His name is in my throat. But I am not able to recollect.

Hint: The teacher asked a student. Where is Sahara Desert?
The student replied that it is in his throat but he is not able to get it right now.

The teacher was astonished how such a big Sahara desert can be within the small throat of the student.

Give your answer to this question below!

More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by : How would you answer this?
The 16th and 17th century mark a time of transition from feudalism to capitalism from medieval philosophy to modern philosophy. Pick two important themes of this transition and explain how they came to be treated differently than before. Give illustrations of how these themes play out by philosophers.
WOW any philosophy majors in the house?!
thanks

Best answer:

Answer by Pierre-Alexandre
Wikipedia, as always…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_philosophy#Medieval_philosophy

Check the references at the bottom.

Add your own answer in the comments!

Question by prettykitty: What ancient religion or philosophy is this?
My friend was talking about some religion or philosophy that was supposed to be the oldest or something. All I really remember was that it had kind of a long name and sounded like it was two words….
I was gonna look it up once I got home but I don’t remember!!!!

Best answer:

Answer by neil s
The oldest scriptural tradition in the world is the Vedas, and the oldest philosophical tradition is in India.

Give your answer to this question below!

Question by ALFRED J: please help me! this is mathematical modelling problems..?
The modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau formulated a simple model of population growth for 18th-century England based on the following assumptions:
The birthrate in London is less than that in rural England.
The death rate in London is greater than that in rural England.
As England industrializes, more and more people migrate from the countryside to London.
Rousseau then reasoned that because London’s birthrate was lower and its death rate higher, and rural people tended to migrate there, the population of England would eventually decline to zero. Criticize Rousseau’s conclusion.

Best answer:

Answer by patrick m
the critisism is the lack of expected life span, and boundry values (not everyone can move, and the population rate change is probably dependant on the current population -like rabbits and wolves living in proximity – more rabbits->more wolves->less rabbits->less wolves) – these can be modeled e^rt – and simultaneous difference equations……

hope this provided a little insight -

What do you think? Answer below!

Find More Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by sephiroth962: Don’t know what to do with the future of this story? Help? Should it be a screenplay, book, tv show? ?
This story has been like 2 years in the making up till now i’m actually gathering info. to develop the story it is the story of a kid named “AJ” (pronouced age idk if thats how you would pronounce it) he has a twin sister, a brother and a family friend as Aj grows up to his late 14 yrs of age he begins to question certain things eventually becoming a philosopher i’ll give him experiences that i myself have experienced as well as all my philosophical views, high school his wisdom increases slowly Aj begins to put the pharse “anything is possible” to the test what does Aj want to be u ask he’ll be emperor of this world. he knows that his task will not be easy and that the world can’t be a perfect place of harmony but he will try his best to keep the world stable enough to bring a sense of harmony, little does he know that he has powers. I wanna make this story as possible as the real world. setting will be our modern world, because this is a huge project of course they will be extra characters involved other than the 4 i just mentioned. i have gathered songs that helped me develop scenes for the story, i also manged to find a way on Microsoft Word to play audio clips of the characters, with music in the background, sound effects basically my own audiobook …the story will have twists loops… mmm thats i all its midnight so sry if i didn’t make certain things clear just e-mail me to clear things up b4 u comment and i’ll leave you with a quote from Aj
“power can build or destroy, love can make u or break u, shit happens for a reason or not at all, ppl change or not at all, some understand some don’t, (tsk) in my opinion everything is balanced nothing will outweigh the other and if so they try to outweigh one another 4 eternity” -Aj

Best answer:

Answer by LJ K
Story idea and work on it seems interesting.
Can only think of one suggestion: put an ‘e’ after Aj (or Aaj?) unless you plan to write a ‘sounds-like’ after the first mention of the name.
As for what this ends out to be ‘real time’ that depends on how you ultimately see the finished product.
Most work shows itself at least by then to be screenplay, novel or TV show; sometimes all three though it can’t be marketed as all three at once.

Once you complete all revisions, it would be best to get an agent in one or all fields (some know all of them). Getting an agent, if you have yet to publish anything, will take time. Suggest you read the first section of the current issue of The Writer’s Market; study all aspects of it and you’ll see what is involved with any type of publication in any field.

If you don’t want to buy the book, you can copy relevant pages (quite a few) at a public library and/or study it there and make notes of what you need to know. The book is also online with all recent updates, but costs (very inexpensive) $ 3.99 a month to see it all. Take a look:

http://www.writersmarket.com

Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!

Related Modern Philosophers Articles

Question by Andrea S: Is this evaluation of the views of different philosophers correct?
Heres the question….How would the statement,“Sell all you have and give to the poor” be evaluated according to Kant’s ethics? What would Mill say about it? What would Kierkegaard say? What would Nietzsche say? What would Sartre say?

and the following is my answer….please give me advice and constructive critisism to make it better if need be… I realize its just kind of a rough draft, but its late and I just needed to get the majority of the answer done….(also i don’t need help with grammar and stuff even though its not good right now…. I just really want someone to evaluate whether my answer sounds good!)

According to Kant’s ethics when we do something we mustn’t do it because of personal preferences, or from gaining or loosing from moral calculations. Kant believes that we can only receive moral credit when we follow the moral law. Kant believed that the moral value of something is always determined by the principle. This basically means if you mean well then no matter what happens you are worthy of praise. But, the most important part of Kant’s philosophy when it comes to this question is what he calls categorical imperative which means that we should only act if we think the principle/statement should apply to all people. This being said I believe that Kant would not agree with this statement. If all people gave all their money to the poor we would end up no better off, in fact the world would be in the same situation that it was in before. Also, I believe that Kant would argue that not all people should receive large amounts of money because they may not be able to handle it well. Basically because this statement should not apply to everyone he would not agree. But if somebody did do it with good intentions then they are worthy of praise and if they did it with bad intentions, for example to keep the money away from their ex, then he would find it appalling.
If someone asked what Mill thought of this statement he would have a different answer than Kant. Mill believed that the only people who could determine if a something was better or worse were people who experienced both pleasures. Mill most likely would have argued that there is no way of knowing whether having more money is better or worse, so if we give all our money to the poor to help them or make them happier, it may not be worth it because it may not make them happier. Also, Mill would have looked at this question and tried to be as impartial as possible. He believed in the greater good for the majority of the population. He would have looked at this question and realized that this would not help the greater good of the population because the rich would now become poor and the problem would still remain, making the situation no better that it was before.
Kierkegaard would also have a different way of analyzing this question. Kierkegaard believed in something which he called the ‘crowd’. He believed that modern people had become dull and mediocre because of their constant striving to be like everyone else. This is what he referred to as the crowd and most likely Kierkegaard would have seen this statement as a way for the poor to be like the rich and follow what the experts think should be done. He would also realize that once the poor received the money that the new poor class would then strive to be like the rich, or the ‘crowd’ Kierkegaard would not have favored this statement because he would feel was brought on by the evermore increasingly dull modern society.
Nietzsche’s reaction to this statement would be different yet again. Nietzsche believed that moral codes reduce our passions and they only replicate the desires and perspectives of those who make them. Thus, Nietzsche would not have felt have any moral duty to give to the poor. He also would say that this statement is the weak trying to convince the powerful that they need to take care of them something which he referred to as slave morality. So in the end Nietzche would not agree with this statement.

Finally, Sartre would evaluate this statement by referring to his believe that we are all condemned to be free. Sartre believed that everyone was free to choice what they want. He would state that the poor chose to be poor and the rich chose to be rich. Ultimately, Sartre would blame the poor for their social situation and would not feel sorry for them. Sartre would not agree with this statement.

Best answer:

Answer by jackmcdoodle
no philosophers are just f uck ing retards

Give your answer to this question below!