How does science view metaphysics and vice versa
How does science view metaphysics and vice versa
How does science view metaphysics and vice versa
Science rejects metaphyscis but metaphysics contain science and explains it
Nothing that science despises more than metaphysics. Why? Because there is no proof for metaphysics. There is no scientific proof, that is, for metaphysics. An evident empiric and established proof, that leaves no doubt in the head of the scientist is primordial for science. In this way science, scientific reasoning that is, rejects metaphysics in bloc. In this way scientific knowledge which dependant on only what we see and only on what we can establish beyond any suspicion.
If a tell a scientist that you have two dimes in your pocket he would ask you to see it with his own eyes in order to believe you. No matter how hard you try in telling him he does not believe you. He simply has to see the two dimes. Then he would verify the two dimes according to his own knowledge registered in his grey cells.
But if he has not seen two dimes before, he would ask you to let examine the two dimes according to the official register books of money references. Should the books do not show any trace of the two dimes, the scientist rejects the two dimes you show him as true. Hard think to convince a scientist!
Likewise, if you inform a botanist of a black rose he would wonder if this is true and asks you to bring evidence. Again, you are obliged to bring him either the black rose and he has then to verify it according to the criteria of roses and then would believe in what you say. If no reference is found in his scientific books then he would reject what you say as false. He, bloody well, has to see the black rose.
No black rose, no belief in the black rose. If you inform him that such a rare rose can be found in some part in the Amazonian jungle, he needs to verify this information. If there is no reference on internet, or in Guinness Book of Records, then he would dismiss the idea of the existence of the black rose. Or you have to travel to the Amzonian jungle on a private venture and attempt to get one for the scientist.
Hard creatures scientists are, they need proof. Your problem could be more enhanced if you tell the scientist that a creator for the black rose and the universe, including the scientist himself, exists. There, your scientist, whether botanist, chemist, physicist, astrophysicist, nuclear or biologist, would need a determined proof for the existence of a creator. Well, you have doubled your chance of losing the faith of the scientist in what you say.
He needs proof, all scientists, following scientific reasoning and aiming at scientific knowledge need a proof for a creator. Should there be no proof for a creator then scientists would not believe in such a creator, a hypothesis according to Laplace a master physicist and mathematician.
But Laplace, like Bacon and Descartes and recently the crippled Hawking, in body, mind and soul, do need proof for God, and a scientific proof that can be analyzed in their laboratories. They need an unquestionable proof or evidence for the creator, that is subject to empirical observation and its validity has to be verified without the least doubt. Well, good luck to you if you can help them in that.
But realistically speaking, if we look into the universe, its galaxies, stars and planets, its order and harmony, its laws and precision, its life and change, dilution, form, shape, color, energy then a brain of s scientist is not needed to tell us that a creator must be to bring about such a wonder. If you observe our solar system you would see more what the scientist can ever see.
You would see matter and mass, dimensions in time and place, exact celestial bodies that each has a perfect function and role, that each has a dimension and energy, that each has order and harmony, that each has a precise and specific role to play. What power has brought such bodies in their orbits and controls them in their orbits?
Is this not a sign, and a strong sign giving mental evidence to people of intelligence that there must be a creator that msut have created all these things? But the scientist needs proof for such hypothesis.
Our planet earth a wonder in its form, shape, constituents, rotation, movement, tilting against its axis, breathing, a living celestial body turning in black material, can be ans very well is subject to order and harmony, all need the hand of an All Powerful All Knowledgeable and All Intelligent creator that must have ordained its existence, its order, movement and life.
But the scientist needs proof for such a hypothesis. If you look into all signs of living beings, humans, animals, plants, minerals, from big organs to the smallest microscopic creatures they all are wonders that give evidence to men of understanding, to men with hearts of feeling, to men who have eyes to see and ears to hear. The marvelous presence of insects with its millions of varieties , beauty, harmony and behavior, all are signs for a creator.
Look at the roses, whether black or otherwise, look at the millions of flowers, their structure, their beauty, their harmony, they all are submitted to the same laws of survival. In this are signs for men of comprehension, These men, or women, do not need to verify the existence of a creator, they do believe in a creator. But scientists deny a creator for they cannot see a creator. They blind themselves for Laplace, Bacon and Descartes with their blind scientific followers decided not believe in anything until they see it.
God must be submitted to experimental knowledge in order for scientists to believe in. Scientists must have absolute and doubtless proof of God's existence, otherwise God remains a supernatural hypothesis, rejected by most scientists.
Scientists, with all their knowledge now, they cannot even create an amoeba, a microbe, let alone a butterfly or a sparrow. They are not only incapable of creating anything, but only discovering what already is in existence, but also are unable to find out what is matter, the subject of all their fields of knowledge and observation and conclusion.
Science did not determine what matter is, what time is, what energy is, what origin underlies the presence of the universe, life and the scientists themselves. They find themselves in this world, forced to come, forced to live, forced to interact with the universe, forced to be in their form and shape, a trunk, a head and four limbs. They find themselves having to submit to conditions of living, eat, drink and sleep, then think and conclude.
But they limit their small brains to observing and refuse to see reality itself behind their sensible objects. They fail, because they blind themselves to what is beyond what they see and exercise in their laboratories, limiting their little brains to what they observe and proof.
But, we laymen, have more intelligence to go beyond what we see and observe. We laymen can have a wider vision and a more comprehensive outlook to refuse to stick the sensible and see what is beyond the sensible namely the intelligible. We laymen cannot limit ourselves to what we see with our naked eyes, but go beyond to see with our mind's eye, the handiwork of a great creator, an absolute power and intelligence that has brought everything into existence, us included and the scientists donkeys.
We do not have to brainy, nor be Einsteins, to realize that God is behind everything, the creator-designer and controller of everything. In order for the universe to exist, its atoms have to be created, put together and kept together, then controlled and are submitted to change, energy, movement and other features.
In order for the scientist to exist his atoms have to be created, put together in its form and shape and function according to what the creator designer of atoms wants them to be. Or perhaps scientists, some billions of years ago, assisted the creator in His creation, in His plan, in His program, in His efforts? Who knows? Perhaps scientists know?
Howignorant,How arrogant, Scientists are?
Successful Grapevine Growing Techniques Billy Ray Cyrus and Tish Cyrus Eventually Component Techniques Best Lottery Numbers to Pick - Pick Your Numbers Using Science Tower Cranes - Manufactured using the most recent and modern technology Green Buildings- The Science behind it Recent Trends In Information Technology Preserving our habitat- Making a Better Place with Biosphere Technology Is Thermal Technology cool or not? What Factors Will Shape Information Technology Careers in the Next 5 Years? Science of 3D TV Concrete Science - Concrete and Cement Extra Techniques for How an Expert Witness Can Help Their Side of the Case during a Deposition Technology Lingo Definitions