enrico #fundie

enrico #fundie atheistforums.org

You MAY be a scientist studying PHYSICAL science.
I find a bit arrogant that someone studying physical science can pretend to understand intuitional science.
As far as intuitional science is not affected by the law of cause and effect it is logical that you can not understand a bit of it with the physical science tool

39 comments

old comment by dionysus

I'm fine with the existence of some different type of science, I really am. Now, can you demonstrate that it is as reliable as physical science? Can you make any specific predictions with intuitional science and have them come true? Can the findings of intuitional science be applied and used to measurably improve our ability to get things done or improve the human condition? If neither of these is true then what, exactly, is the value of it? Physical science gives us medicine, has made numerous substantiated predictions, and is being used by industry to improve productivity. It has shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it works. Can intuitional science establish that kind of track record?

old comment by Anon-e-moose

image

My intuition tells me - in a very scientific way - that the scientific community will have to wait an extremely long time for you to prove ([/1 Thessalonians 5:21 [KJV]) via your (First) 'Cause' with the resulting 'effect', to prove himself right. I mean, what's stopping him, if he's limiting his omnipotence in this way, otherwise - intuitively - your (First) Cause (God) himself proves that he doesn't exist to prove we Atheists wrong?

I think that's what the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller vs. Dover should have done: wheel a cage into the courtroom - with that same sign - then simply point to it, whilst looking at the defence team and say 'Your call.'

old comment by Canadiest

Another attempt to squeeze their myth into science on the argument of; We're entitled to this by law.
Add "intuitional science." to this list of arguments they consider valid points to this theocratical end game.

Opinion (equal to fact, thanks FoxNews for actually institutionalizing lying)

Belief (equal to fact, but only for Christian beliefs including Christian Dogma)

Tradition (the day Christianity logged a win, God on money, God in the Pledge, Ten commandments in pubic areas, is the day tradition began, everything beforehand doesn't count)

Inalienable rights (to them meaning they can't be refused input into any field, they misuse it to imply they LEGALLY HAVE TO have influence in ALL fields. They don't extend this argument to include other beliefs, only Christians can play this card)

Inherent Rights ( the belief that Christianity trumps societies laws, it doesn't, but the Evangelists, Mormons and Southern Baptists are causing tons of shit barking this idea out at the pulpit)

Divine Knowlege (being claimed with this "intuitional science" bullshit and the additional point that those studying something else will never be privy to this revelation and therefore always wrong)

Supernatural Reality (a William Laing Craig addition to creationism, as he has introduced philisophical arguments for a God created universe into the mix to,,,sell more books,,,his arguments are just as weak as any religion and seems dependant entirely on there being more (too much really) acedemic respect for philophosy than religion. For me, and anyone else should logically agree, his use of the phrase "Supernatural Reality" is jumping the shark tank and revealing blind Christian faith. Check this guy out, creationists have really been borrowing his philisophical arguments for God lately, he's the newest thing)

enrico #fundie atheistforums.org

39 comments

Confused?