How reliable is science? (Assumption 7/7) (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, April 24, 2012, 03:40 (4379 days ago) @ David Turell


> > It's a given: we don't know, what we don't know. But science itself gives us a way out of that trap: the very fact that you note science's changing nature is *exactly* why it should dominate as the primary means of investigating our universe. Look what happened when I caught panentheism in its logical trap: David shut down. He didn't want to engage anymore. In fact, he deliberately asked I stop talking about it. (And if you read this David, again, panentheism is false by definition. You're a pantheist.) 
> 
> I'm not a sure of anything by the way you define. My concept of me by the definitions I've read is I am a panentheist. Maybe the dictionaries are wrong. An issue of no importance. Still has to be a first cause. God made the universe from His mind and He is within and without the universe. We are contained by him.-The logical contradiction lies purely upon the notion that the universe can be separate from God. Panentheism DOES try and make this distinction, but this is patently not possible. -I know what the dictionary definitions say, but due to that brief discussion about "nothing," the "universe," and "God," there is absolutely NO logical basis for panentheism. It's an artificial distinction, like the difference between a Latino and myself. (superficial.) -I'm a logician at root, if nothing else, trust me. Is Pantheism that bad?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"