"a Physicist [PhD, Quantum-Nuclear Physics], Theologian [ThD, Apologetics], and a Physician [DSc, Alt Med] and DNYS."
in a free online course offered by Indus School Of Apologetics And Theology, found in lesson 2, "Science and God":
"...The aim of science is to investigate matter and energy. To discover their properties and behaviour pattern. If a particular thing is neither matter nor energy, then it cannot be investigated in a laboratory...."
"...The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy. The investigation takes place with the help of repeated experiments. All negations and affirmations depend upon experimental observations, and nothing can be established without relevant experiments.
Physics investigates the physical properties of matter and energy. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, and the various scientific disciplines known to us investigate the physical behaviour of things pertaining to their respective fields...."
"...Science is a tool, a methodology, developed to study matter and energy. It, therefore, is able to investigate truths only in this region. If there is any truth in the world besides matter, science is not able to investigate it...."
"...the purpose of science is to study matter and energy, and nothing beyond that. Even if someone tries to broaden its boundaries, that is not possible. All affirmations and negations have to be established only on the basis of repetitive experimental observations.God is neither matter nor energy. Therefore the methods of experimental sciences cannot be applied to disprove His existence. Nobody in the world has devised an experiment that can disprove God.
If anyone claims that sciences have disproved the existence of God, he must be asked to defend his position. He has to explain the experiment, the place where this was performed and the place where the results were published. Anyone can make any claims saying that science has demonstrated this or that fact, but then he should be able to support his claims by pointing to relevant experiments.
No one claiming that science has disproved God has ever come up with experimental evidence to support this claim. This is because they are using the name of science to intimidate the ignorant. There is no truth in their claims, but they will continue repeating this false claim as long as they can successfully disturb people.
If anyone claims that science has disproved God, he has to describe the experiment that finally disproved God. Discussing anything else is irrelevant to the argument...."
Pony up, John. :)
Big old kudos to Momma Twoop for her tip.
Dang, I forgot the link to the online course! Had to do an edit: Does God Exist, Bible And Science Free Course
19 comments:
Opps, sorry kiddo. As Bill Clinton would say on this one -- "no cigar for you."
He claims to have over 2,500 papers in physics. That is the quietest 2,500 I have ever seen in my life ... since no one with his name is listed under the American Physics society database. And when you google him you get a hit for three papers, one is a paper from Fermilab discussing the production of muon streams. There are over 100 co-authors listed. He is not one of them. Nor is any paper of his listed in the citation section. The other two are alternative medicine tracts and he is not the author of those either. I could be wrong .. but there is something fishy here .... Any scientist who would have 250 papers to his credit in his lifetime would be considered prolific.
Second, the title D. Sc., Alt Med really raises some questions. I know of no such degree except those who have either awarded themselves the title, or have gotten it off the internets for about a $10 fee (which is $9.98 more than it is worth.) I have been a member of the National Council Against Healthfraud for a long time now and I am pretty good at spotting fakes, flakes and faikers of woo. Lawdy ... I seen enough of them.
And I have absolutely no idea what DNYS is. Which, I suspect is the point of the acronym.
He does run some websites where he sell various self-published books and religious trinkets and such ...
As to his suggestion that science should concern itself with proving negatives ... sorry but there are better ways to waste one's time. If this is an example of his deepest thinking and analytical ability then the religious need to find another spokesman.
Haw haw, John! No need to apologize.
You see, whether he is a Physicist with a PhD, a Theologian with a ThD or a Physician with a DSc in Alternative Medicine or that other thang we never heared of, he made an excellent argument.
You are right, Science can't prove a negative, meaning science hasn't and can't prove that God doesn't exist but that isn't stopping you, Stenger and PZ Myers from making the claim, from calling those who believe in God, gawd or little gods "superstitious fools," and such just because it isn't a *theory* or a *hypothesis* in which ya'll have faith. It appears to gall you two, and your Dr. Stenger, that you don't get to choose what theories and hypothises (sp?) in which the rest of us choose to put OUR faith.
You didn't argue against his definitions or the content of this post, you merely attacked his credibility. I can't personally defend him, don't know him and I don't know what a "DNYS" is either, but that discounts NOTHING he has written or said. :)
I have been telling you I can't prove God's existence, you have finally gotten around to admitting you can't prove that God DOESN'T exist, either. Congratulations!
You say you have better things to "waste" your time on but obviously you don't, since you've been busy either belittling Vincent David Jericho or all religions as fairy tales and myths ALMOST exclusively at your own blog.
The fairy tale and myth is that scientists have disproved God. No one adhering to "Spiritual theory" has claimed to be able to prove God's EXISTENCE to myopic (and yes, ignorant) Scientists who believe that all power of knowledge in the universe is concentrated in the feeble minds of men, yet it is very important to the lot of you Scientists to call into question the existence of God.
Now, are you ready to delve into why it is that "if religious fanatics are such superstitious fools, beneath respect and consideration, are scientists so obsessed with proving them wrong?" That was the basis of "Science, Superior to God?" in the first place and it is the basis you have ignored while trying to change the subject to something with which you are more comfortable.
I asked MANY questions in "Science, Superior to God" and "Spiritual Theory versus Scientific Theory," you've failed to comment on any of them.
I STILL find that interesting.
"This is because they are using the name of science to intimidate the ignorant." ~ Dr. (?) Johnson C. Philip
Like I have repeatedly noted, I am not a scientist. That makes me ignorant of science, John, but your intimidation tactics aren't working. You can no more answer my questions about spirituality than I can your questions about science. I could learn from you because I accept the premise that science exists, you can learn nothing from me because you do not accept the premise that God exists.
What you cannot do is take away my faith in God and transfer it to a faith in man or science as being more powerful or superior than/to God. You wish to control others by your scoffing intimidation of anyone who allows God to have an authoritarian place in their lives. Again, I ask you:
What makes you think that you or PZ are the man/men who get to claim as edict and instruction what the rest of humankind should believe or not believe, what constitutes brilliance or nonsense for the rest of us?
It's quite presumptuous of you, John.
Smoochies.
Don't miss the paoint Jacke ... if a guy will lie to you about his personal credentials ... and this is into the "whopper" catagory... and mislead you, what else would he lie about and mislead you about?
The answer is: just about anything -- religion is just another money-making gimmick for those folks. I say that because at the very bottom lies one common thing, be it religion, alt med, pseudoscience, UFOs and all ... money.
Find another, more reputable proof-source. In fact, as the Big Girl herself to help you out with this. The appearance of a squid in PZ's toilet bowl would do it for me.
So you're quite certain Dr. Philip is lying about his credentials, Mr. Stone? On what do you base your claim? From reading your post, it appears you have come to that conclusion, and please correct me if I'm wrong, because:
1) you cannot find his papers online;
2) you know of no such degree as DSc, Alt. Med, and;
3) you do not recognize the acronym DNYS, and being a member of National Council Against Healthfraud, you're pretty keen at picking out frauds.
Apparently not keen enough....
Aside from having a PhD in Physics and being a Theologian, Dr. Philip is a DSc (Doctor of Science) in Alternative Medicine. That title certainly DOES exist and cannot be "bought" or given to one's self as you suggest, but rather must be earned. He also has a DNYS, a Diploma in Naturopathic and Yogic Sciences, which can only be gotten after a three year study and internship.
It seems someone is certainly attempting to mislead folks here, but it isn't Dr. Philip.
MommaT ... I have just put his websites out to the National Council Against Healthfraud ... it will certainly be interesting to find out who and what he is versus what he claims to be.
We do have a lot of resources to investigate people who commit fraud .. perhaps you can head us off by writing to him and asking where and when he recieved a Ph. D. and from whom and when he recieved a D. Sci (Alt Med) .... I am sure that if he is legit he will be happy to tell you and of course I can find out from independant records from th institution.
This is getting really weird, John. You don't want to address any of my actual points or answer any questions posed under the post "Science, Superior to God?".
You don't want to address any of my actual points or answer any questions posed under the post "Spiritual Theory versus Scientific Theory."
Now you find lame excuses for not addressing any of the legitimate points or answering any questions posed in this post.
I don't give a rat's patootie if I quoted Dr. Philip, Donald Duck or the tooth fairy (since you seem to be so smitten by her) the fact of the matter is that there are legitimate definitions and arguments made under this posting and you have ducked and quacked and clucked about everything you can think of in order to avoid discussing what this blogger happens to have written about and/or quoted from for DAYS on end.
Don't you have a Paris Hilton picture to post at Curbstone or something? ;)
Here is some more information for you, Mr. Stone. He was educated in India. By all means, find out all you can about the man. I'm not at all clear on your reasons for doing so, however.
From apologeticswiki.com:
Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, Christian apologist and Creationist. He was born 1954-04-03 in Kerala, India, and raised in Kerala, Chennai, Kota (Rajasthan) and Gwalior.
Philip developed an interest in books, science and evolution in particular. However, as he studied evolution, he thought it difficult to resolve many of the evolutionary theories and explanation with empirical observations. He developed an interest in creation science, and since devoted his efforts to Christian apologetics and creationism.
Johnson C. Philip authored more than 50 books and 2500 articles in defense of the Christian faith. He also founded the first seminary in the world that offers masters and doctoral programs in Christian apologetics through distance education. Known as Trinity School of Apologetics and Theology, it has trained a number of key apologists worldwide.
Dr. Johnson C. Philip, IndiaHis degrees include:
BSc, Physics, 1976
MSc, Physics, 1978
MTh, 1981
ThD, 1984
PhD, Physics, 1991
DSc, Alternative medicine, 2003
DNYS, 2004.
Since 1978 he has been a prolific writer, and has published more than 50 books and 2500 articles in 6 languages in the fields of theology, apologetics, counseling, and communication. He has also published several research papers in apologetics and information technology as applied to libraries in India.
He was raised up in a small but active evangelical and separatist denomination best identified as the Plymouth Brethren.
In 1989 he joined Brethren Bible School, Pathanamthitta, India as a lecturer, teaching apologetics, theology, communication and counseling. In 1994 he was made the Academic Dean and in 1995 the Vice Principal Cum Academic Dean. From 1999 to 2002 when the Principal was away on a Sabbatical, he became the full principal. In 2003 he accepted the invitation from a visionaries to become the Founding-Principal of Rehoboth Theological Institute in Trichur, India. RTI was launched on 2 June 2002, where he served up to 21 June 2005.
Over the years from 1970 to 2005 he founded a number of institutions, secular as well as theological institutions with an emphasis on education and research. The first one of these was the Creation Research and Apologetics Society (CRASI) founded in 1971. The initial work of CRASI was to give lectures in creationism and apologetics. Then in 1982 CRASI started the publication of Science and Faith, an undated periodical. In 1990 he started Philip Communication, a distance education school to train Christian print media communicators. In 1996 he and some of his students started the Calvin Research Group to function as an umbrella for all the present and future ministries initiated by Philip.
He made notable contributions in several fields, such as education, information technology, and Alternative Medicine. He also played a key role among the conservatives in the Brethren Assemblies. He was the joint writer of the first Systematic Theology in and Christian Apologetics in the Malayalam language. He was also the Chief Editor of a 4-volume Bible Encyclopedia, and a one-volume Encyclopedia of Theology, both a first in the Malayalam language.
I guess John was looking in the wrong places for Dr. Philip's published work, huh? Thank you, Twoop. :)
You're quite welcome, Jacke! There is much more about Dr. Philip at that site, including a listing of many of his publications. He's an admirable man, IMO.
Apparently, he's left John speechless...at least as far as making any tangible rebuttal to the content of what he has had to say.
Hopefully, John has found a nice picture of a freshman Lady Bear, Britney Spears or Paris Hilton to keep him busy for the time being (or he could be listening to VD(j) podcasts.
Boredom is a terrible thing to waste.
P.S. He knows I luv 'im :::wink, wink:::
It would be nice if he would share his thoughts about the content of Dr. Philip's lesson, as well as answering your questions and points raised.
I bet he's just busy this evening and will give you an earful (or eyeful, I suppose) tomorry!
MommaT ... you're right ... it's been a busy day and dang ... now you have my crazy sleep/work hours figured out. Tomorrow promises to be busier.
The use of an unreliable source and then the justification of "let's ignore him and just take his argument" is very common in some of the crazier parts of the internet. I don't think even you buy into that one if you thought about it this way:
David Koresh and Jim Jones wrote some stuff that I will bet money that you would agree with religiously. Are you willing to defend them, or what they said ... or what they had in mind to do with what they said and how they used it.
It's all about who you are .. even Billy Graham's reputation suffered lasting harm - not from his religion - but what he did.
Mother Theresa was not all that nice a person we have learned.
That's why the faking, or the exaggeration, of credentials is important. Immediately comming to mind is that Pfat Pfool Pfalwell who prefers to call himself "Dr." because he was awarded an honerary degree from an unaccredited Bible school.
John writes:
"It's all about who you are .. "
Okay. Why are you wasting your time here, John? Who am I? Who is Momma Twoop?
Katherine Yurica....who is she? Just some plain, ordinary, Christian BUT with a difference, YOU used her to rebut me, or tried to, anyway, why is she more credible? Because YOU agree with HER, that made her all that, huh?
Okay, everybody but you, PZ Myers and Dr. Stenger are nobody and nothing...everyone else is just a potential Jim Jones.
You are either here, visiting JackeHammer, because you want to exchange ideas, or because you would like to undermine other people's faith. That brings us right back to the main point and question I asked in "Science, Superior to God?", a point you disregard, ignore and refuse to discuss:
"Why, if religious fanatics are such superstitious fools, beneath respect and consideration, are scientists so obsessed with proving them wrong?
Anytime someone, anyone, announces that a certain sector of society are fools but then continues to spend an exorbitant amount of time on trying to disprove what those "fools" believe, then in actuality they are giving undue credence to the "fools," are they not?"
I'm certainly unworthy of your consideration and yet you are here, avoiding dealing with anything and everything I have written. Forget Dr. Philip if you want, forget the stupid hillbilly that writes this blog. We are beneath you...you are FAR superior to me, that's for sure. I'm certainly not worthy of your valuable time and vaunted intellect.
Nobody's anybody and you, John, you ARE god.
I'm God? ... I should be honored JackeM. But I'm not particularly. He can be a not vey nice guy sometimes. You and yours he blesses. Theirs and everybody elses he murders -- opps ... kills.
Naw .. you guys are the good guys ... you don't try to faist your religion down my unwilling throat by legislation -do you? Or use deceptive means to get to what you would call justifyable ends ... at least I hope you wouldn't.
If religion wants to go back to the 'good old days" wich as it turns out wern't so good after all... and get out of theri religion whatever they want and leave everybody else alone ... then I will be happy to go back to my lab, do my thing, and let others live their own uninterupted lives.
But now that the religious have gotten a taste for political power I suspect we are in for a very long haul.
And ... I am a lousy proofreader and in a hurry to boot ...
MommaT ... you're right ... it's been a busy day and dang ... now you have my crazy sleep/work hours figured out. Tomorrow promises to be busier.
Hey, it was a guess. Glad I guessed right. I hope you're sufficiently impressed with my sage-like qualities. :)~
The use of an unreliable source and then the justification of "let's ignore him and just take his argument" is very common in some of the crazier parts of the internet.
Recognizing that a person, regardless of who he/she is, may have made some valid points is something anyone with an ounce of intelligence strives to do, Mr. Stone. The truth is that even though we don't all agree on everything and may, in fact, disagree vehemently on most things, the possibility of learning from each other still exists. How can that ever take place if we were to deal with each other in the manner you suggest?
Further, something that IS, IMO, crazy is:
1) Deciding that someone is a fake or a fraud simply because you don't recognize his degrees (quite possibly because he was educated in India) and because you disagree with what he has to say, and;
2) Touting your allegation as fact when you have admitted that you don't know it to be true, and using it as an excuse to dismiss every point made.
There are no claims that Dr. Philip is a fraud from anyone except you. You have made unsubstantiated allegations against him and are now touting them as fact. You claimed he seemed shady because you couldn't find a list of his writings, though you obviously didn't try too darned hard. You suspected his titles were "bought" and faked because you didn't recognize them, again, not trying too hard, if at all, to research the matter yourself. Now you're deeming the man a fraud in your posts. It's actually kinda funny, Mr. Stone, that a learned man like yourself would stoop to such a level.
even you buy into that one if you thought about it this way:
David Koresh and Jim Jones wrote some stuff that I will bet money that you would agree with religiously. Are you willing to defend them, or what they said ... or what they had in mind to do with what they said and how they used it.
You're comparing apples to oranges here for some odd reason. Please elaborate. If you're implying that everything Koresh or Jones ever uttered was wrong simply because of who they were, you're mistaken. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day. For your information, Jones was a socialist. I doubt that there was very little that man could have said with which I would have agreed. I know nothing about Koresh's teachings or ideology except some weird ramblings I've seen on video. The man was a kook.
It's all about who you are .. even Billy Graham's reputation suffered lasting harm - not from his religion - but what he did.
If it's all about who you are, then I'd suggest you start addressing the issues Jacke has painstakingly raised instead of attacking an Indian doctor's credibility. You're harming your own credibility by refusing to do so, IMO.
Mother Theresa was not all that nice a person we have learned.
Who cares? Straw man, as Jacke would say.
That's why the faking, or the exaggeration, of credentials is important.
None of which has been established, but that still doesn't stop you from pretending it has. You've deemed it so for no reason whatsoever, or, I should say, for very flimsy reasons and lack of research. You're free to continue on the premise that Dr. Philip is a fake, but we all know you have no proof, can offer no proof, and that it's nothing more than another straw man argument.
Immediately comming to mind is that Pfat Pfool Pfalwell who prefers to call himself "Dr." because he was awarded an honerary degree from an unaccredited Bible school.
Apples to oranges yet again.
As Jacke said, Mr. Stone, pony up, please and address the issues being discussed.
He can be a not vey nice guy sometimes. You and yours he blesses. Theirs and everybody elses he murders -- opps ... kills.
You're sounding like an extremist now. Please explain what you mean by this. How can someone you say doesn't exist be "not very nice" or anything else?
Naw .. you guys are the good guys ... you don't try to faist your religion down my unwilling throat by legislation -do you?
What kind of Christian legislation is being shoved down your throat, Mr. Stone?
Or use deceptive means to get to what you would call justifyable ends ... at least I hope you wouldn't.
You mean like picking a number out of thin air, like 60, and saying that percentage of Americans support abortion when they didn't, as NARAL did? Or like picking a number out of thin air, say 10, and saying that many Americans are homosexual when they weren't? Like continuing to tell that lie even after you know it's a lie? Or kinda like trying to impose by judicial fiat gay marriage on a country in which the large majority of citizens are against it? Or demanding children in elementary be taught that a homosexual lifestyle is a "healthy, viable, normal alternative" to heterosexuality, when it isn't? Like fudging environmental data so one can instill fear, impose unnecessary restrictions on people's lives, while lining one's own pockets? Are those the kinds of deceptive means to a justifiable end you're talking about, Mr. Stone? Don't look now, but if anyone is shoving anything down anyone's throats, it's the pro-abortion activists, women's rights activists, environmental fearmongers, and gay rights activists. There has been much more shoving down the throat coming from them in the past four decades than anyone else. Do you have a problem with them, Mr. Stone, or do you limit your contempt to the religious?
"You're sounding like an extremist now. Please explain what you mean by this. How can someone you say doesn't exist be "not very nice" or anything else?"
I reference Genesis through Revelation -- inclusive.
"What kind of Christian legislation is being shoved down your throat, Mr. Stone?"
The kind you yourself took Tony to task for opposing today ... Gotcha....
"Do you have a problem with them, Mr. Stone, or do you limit your contempt to the religious?"
Oh, no, indeed. My contempt for religions is unlimited.
You are confusing me with "Momma Twoop," John.
I haven't taken Tony to task for opposing bill HB 808, I have taken him to task for misinterpreting, misrepresenting and failing to consider the other side of the argument. He has every right to oppose it. Where I have a problem with Messenger is his lying in order to do so.
I hope that clears it up for you.
Post a Comment