Modern philosophy cannot exist without the assumption that God does
not exist. The philosophy of modern science prohibits the possibility
of God's existence through the "scientific" principle that a theory is
not scientific (philosophically valid) unless it can be disproved.
Since the idea that God exists in heaven cannot be disproved (because
no scientist can go to heaven and prove that He is not there, or even
find heaven, for that matter), scientists conclude that the statement
"God exists in heaven" is unscientific and, therefore, laughable;
However, this philosophy was designed to omit God and the supernatural
from everyday thought.
That is, to a scientist, the statement "there is no God" (the
religious humanist evolutionist's mantra) is "scientific" proof that
there is no God. This foolishness occurs because the two
possibilities related to the question of God's existence are "there is
no god" and "God exists", and since, as previously noted, the
statement "God exists" is "unscientific", the only possible scientific
answer to the question is the theory "God does not exist". This
because, according to scientists, a Christian can disprove the theory
by presenting God to the scientific community. In this way the
supernatural and God are shut out of modern scientific philosophy, and
scientists, as a community, adopt humanism as their religion. To put
it another way, a minority group, the population of scientists, is
misleading the nations and is driving them to believe that faith in
God is unscientific with no more proof of their claim than that
scientists have made it. "There is no God", goes their mantra,
"because there is no God." They tickle the ears of the corrupt and
immoral political world leaders and business community by making an
assumption and calling the assumption "science", a Greek word for
"knowledge".
To further incriminate themselves, some scientists call the body of
knowledge which supports creationism "pseudo-science", or
philosophically unacceptable and untenable. Actually, the problem
lies not with the science of creation, but with modern philosophy.
Here's why:
If I were to disprove the "scientific" theory "there is no God" by
presenting a god, Jesus Christ, to scientists, they could say, "I've
seen his power, but I don't believe that he is a supernatural spirit
god. I believe that he is an alien with powers that we don't yet
understand. He's not supernatural. He is a part of this material
universe, sprang from this material universe and we will
scientifically study him." To scientists such an attitude would be
scientifically valid, philosophically acceptable, since Jesus could
disprove it to them by allowing them to see the spirit realm and by
allowing them to study the angels, but scientists could hold that the
theory "Jesus is a supernatural spirit god" would be unscientific
since scientists could not in anyway disprove it. How could they
disprove Jesus' spirit nature? There is no conceivable scientific
method for doing so. (What's more, how could they disprove a
"truth"?) Such a path could continue for eons if not forever with
scientists stubbornly refusing to accept as scientific truth the
existence of the supernatural even as they become liable to the lake
of fire.
It follows that no matter what a powerful being might do to a
scientist, a modern, politically correct, philosophically acceptable
scientist could explain the activities of the powerful being as being
something other than supernatural. Therefore, religious humanism must
be the de facto religion of the accepted scientist. The gap between
scientists and Christians is not one of knowledge, but one of
religion.
The problem with modern philosophy is, for one thing, that it makes a
religious statement and uses the statement for the basis of its body
of knowledge without admitting that it's "science" is based on a
religious assumption, but, instead, calls it's science indisputable
fact. More than one intellectual has called universities temples and
professors the priests of the modern religion. To become a Christian,
the modern scientist has to abandon the philosophy of modern
"science". Further, because of the required "disputability" of
"scientific" theories, if the supernatural does exist, it, in theory,
could never be accepted as fact by a modern scientist. (However, I
believe that, in reality, God has a way to prove His supremacy to each
person, and this apart from artificial, man-made philosophies.)
Why are scientists so close-minded? Why can they not change their
philosophy so that, if the supernatural proves on its own terms its
own existence, they can accept as fact God's existence? The
philosophy of the modern age is "there is no Jehovah", and it has no
more foundation for its structure than the idolaters of old had for
their beliefs. We need a change in philosophy if we are to be more
reasonable and open to all the possibilities that are a part of
existence.
.
|
