Barkon at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:26:48 UTC No. 16166513

How is God not science.

1. Minds carry memories.
2. Memories of previous lives may be present, including memory of God
3. Science may one day unlock the power to see people's memories.
4. Thus God can be science.

Barkon at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:30:01 UTC No. 16166518

>>16166513
God is a comfortable conversation. And is ought. There needs to be a driving force to all of existence for it to begin and reach this stage. There's nothing wrong with thinking God probably exists, it's that thinking he definitely exists requires evidence. And a memory until shown cannot express that God exists in dialog. We cannot communicate it to each other.

But hey ho, there's energies coming off certain people with memories of God - this is outright proof that God exists. You just need to be able to recognize petty energy.

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:38:24 UTC No. 16166527

>>16166513
“Science may one day prove it” is not the present. Based on current scientific method, you can not prove its existence, whether you are religious or atheist. Again I picked God as a general topic but pick your own thing. Suppose you live in 16th century and everyone around you believes earth is center of the universe. However you are aware of scientific method, would you accept it as a useful and pragmatic fact?

Anonymous at Wed, 8 May 2024 22:40:07 UTC No. 16166531

>>16166508
I don't know but I'm in a phil phd program, and while they kind of respect Feyerabend they seethe hard as shit about ideas. A literal tranny prof of mine summarized his position (in a half-joking manner) as implying that we should be teaching creationism in schools because scientific certainty is impossible.

I had no idea about the state of contemporary academic philosophy because I'm coming from a math MS. It was really surprising to find out that a weird blend of analytic philosophy and continental philosophy/critical theory has become popular. All the current analytic philosophers of science call themselves "feminist philosophers of science" (this is extremely common in the philosophy of physics community), and they uphold (((logical positivism))) and critical theory as the pinnacle of modern philosophy. These days they don't even care about people like Frege, David Hilbert, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, John Searle, etc. The uphold secondary figures like Carnap, Nagel, and Reichenbach as the pinnacle of 20th century analytic philosophy. Then they combine that with shit like Frantz Fanon and Kimberly Crenshaw and this stuff called "standpoint epistemology".

Also, they prefer the term "logical empiricism" to the term "logical positivism", which has traditionally been used. Why? I couldn't say, I just know they do. Contemporary mainstream academic philosophy can then be described as something like
Logical Empiricism + Feminist Epistemology + Critical Race theory

I genuinely had no idea before entering grad school that these are the trendy areas of philosophy at the moment, but I can't say it's surprising. They basically took the superficial STEM worship of the (((positivists))) and combined it with the most vitriolic anti-white/pro-LGBT aspects of continental philosophy.