Freewill/Foreknowledge not contradictions

[Metacrock]

[QUOTE=rogerT;4969137]

Originally Posted by Metacrock

thats' just your opinion. do you realize that most of the major thinkers o the world dsiagere with you?

no they don't actually. But do you think they agree with you?

Are you suggesting that most of the major thinkers of the world disagree with the idea that undetectable existence is meaningless?

yes. they sure better. because most of science believes that very thing.

(1) We cannot detect the origin of the Big Bang, but science asserts that it has one.

(2) We will probably never be able to observe strings or sring membranes, we certainly can't now, but a major portion of scinece agrees with them.

(3) we cannot as yet observe neutrinos head on. We can only observe the aura that occurs when they react with other paticals. But most scientists believe they exist. (it may be that we can do that now but it's recent.. Neutrinos have been theorized and accepted since the 30s).

(4) you can't prove the existence of other minds.

What good is an undetectable object?

tell that to the physicists who believe in string theory.

Is this "argument from authority"? Who cares? Did either of these people -or any of your "major thinkers of the world" ever present evidence of existence?

what do you mean by that? evidence of what existence?

Thought experiments are fun, but they don't necessarily prove anything.

lgoical arguments are not thought experiments. please learn something about logic!


this is the ideology of atheism at work. you are not a scisitst you are not a philosopher. But ignorant atheist websites have brainwashed you to believe that the only form of knowledge is direct observatin. you know so little about science you don't even know science doesn't always use that.

Are we talking about reasons for the existence of god or are we talking about what other people may or may not believe or think? I have a friend who thinks sasquatch is real, does that have any bearing on whether or not sasquatch exists?

It does if he has good arguments. do you not understand the concept of argument? why don't you know what arguments are? please try to learn something before you run around bad mouthing things you don't understand?

Things that are said to exist are detectable and evidenced; otherwise, existence becomes a meaningless word. What is the difference between a thing that exists and a thing that is only imaginary?

that's an ideolgoical assumption that the little atheist hate group has brainwahsed you to believe. I porve above it's not a law of laogic, it's not a law of science. it's not practicsed by science Science is willing to accept the possiblity of thigns they can't prove exist.

Here is an even more amaiznig idea. scinece is nto the only form of knowledge. I know this is so hard for you because you have put scinece in place of God. But, it's true. science is not knowlege.

Philosophy is knowledge, logic is knowledge. folklore is knowledge. the cat in the hat is knowledge. anything you know about is knowledge. match books aer knowledge. any form of information is knowledge.

Philosophy is important knowledge because as I have demonstrated many times philosophy is prior to science and is valid and needed corrective on data gathering. Scientists can tend to become data gathering fools who lose sight of what they are doing. It's necessary to move back and observe the sweeping structures of thought separated from data.

here's the quote that proves it, this is a scientist writing.

The traditional posativistic view of science has been eroding since the late 1950s. Although, preceded by a substantial amount of work in the philosophy and sociology of science (Laudan 84), The analysis of science promulgated by historian of science Thomas S. Kuhn (1970) were the first to really catch the attention of the scientific world, and especially the psychological world. Since that time awareness of positivistic, postmdoern or "historicist" trneds in the philosophy of science on the part of psychologists has increased (e.g., Bevan, 1991; Gergen, 1985; Gholson and Barker, 85; Howard, 85; Manicas and Secord, 83; O'Donohue, 1989; the trend in understanding science might be as follows.

Posativisistic philosophy of science has tuaght us that data are theory laden. A simplistic empirical foundationaliam or naive realism, the view that empirical data are unsullied and indubitable, is no longer tenable. Philosophers were the fist to clearly see this. Results of contemporary perceptual and cognaive psychology clearly support the contention that data are sorted or processed from their first entry into the human organism's first sensory equipment. For instance, expectations have a profound impact upon on the perceiving process (the famous Postman studies sited by Kuhn)and these findings have made their way into the philosophy of science literature. It is commonly noted that all seeing is "seeing as." (Stanton L. Jones, "On the Suppossed Incomensurability of Scinece and Religion" in Religion an the Clinical Practice of Psychology. ed Edward P.Shafranske American Pssycholgoical Asociation Washington DC 1996, 118."