Theistic Science: Rational Scientific Theories from Theism

Rational Scientific Theories from Theism

What are the principles of Theistic Science? 
   The Three Fundamental Premises of Theistic Science
  1. The universe was created and is run by God through spiritual laws of order.
  2. These laws cannot be discovered but are transmitted through scientific revelations.
  3. Scientific revelations are rational in structure and serve as the guiding theory for all scientific research.
  (from Leon James' article "Theistic Science")    

What is this website, theisticscience.org, about? The aim of this site is to present introductions, expositions and consequences of a set of scientific theories that start with the three premises above, and connect (where rational) to current scientific theories and practices. The main connections will be with physics, psychology and philosophy, but much more remains to be done to connect, for example, with biology and physiology.

I'd mentioned this on Skeptiko awhile back, but one of the regulars there - Ian Thompson - set up this site. For those interested in philosophy of science and philosophy of theism it should prove to be very interesting.

I think there's an issue with the link to the Leon James article. I'm trying to find it but here's James' site which is in the same vein:

Theistic Psychology:  The Scientific Knowledge of God Extracted from the Correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture

Most people and scientists today believe that our mental life is in the brain, which is physical in time. Hence this would mean that our mental life is physical. This theory or principle is known as reductionism in science. In other words, the mental of eternity gets reduced to the chemical world of neurons in the physical brain. According to this theoretical reductionism, mental life or consciousness of self and world, is said not to really exist. Only the electro-chemical action of the brain is really real. But this hypothesis is incorrect, as is fully proven in theistic psychology.

The reality is that our mental life is not in this world but in the mental world. Our sensations, thoughts, and feelings are not physical operations but mental. Mental operations are not measurable physically since they are not in the physical world. When we are born we are born into eternity and each of us is immortal. For awhile we are dual citizens, living in two worlds simultaneously that are precisely interconnected by cause-effect laws of correspondences (to be explained later). We have temporary membership in a horizontal community in time on earth through a physical body. We also have permanent membership in a vertical community in eternity in the mental world of humanity. 

We live our temporary existence in the physical body on earth, and this is tied to our immortal existence in the spiritual body in eternity. For instance, as you are reading this, your physical senses and brain, control your eye movements, as well as the analysis of the linguistic information in each word, sentence, and paragraph. So now the brain has translated the visual information into a neural pattern of electro-chemical firings. That's it. That's as far as the brain can go. The brain is physical in time-space, but the meaning of the sentences is not physical, but mental.

This is worth repeating: the words on the screen or page are physical, but their meaning is mental. Nothing of the mental can exist in the physical. These two are separate in existence, but tied in function. Your physical body in time-space is tied by function to your mental body in eternity. The two must work together until your death. This means separation from the physical world of time and space. Without a physical body, the mental body now is free in its own existence. This is the afterlife of eternity. It never ends. What life is like in eternity will be discussed.

I think there's an issue with the link to the Leon James article. I'm trying to find it but here's James' site which is in the same vein:

Theistic Psychology:  The Scientific Knowledge of God Extracted from the Correspondential sense of Sacred Scripture

The Internet Archive has a copy of Leon James's article:
https://web.archive.org/web/201603040013...istic.html

I'm sorry, but I don't think it has anything to do with the concept of science as it is usually understood.

The Internet Archive has a copy of Leon James's article:
https://web.archive.org/web/201603040013...istic.html

I'm sorry, but I don't think it has anything to do with the concept of science as it is usually understood.

Thanks for the link - I haven't read the article yet so I can't comment at the moment what it has to do with the concept of science.

I think I'm going to focus on Ian Thompson's work over Leon James' for now, not sure I can easily follow Leon James' arguments and what I can follow I can't help but disagree with much of it at the moment...

I think I'm going to focus on Ian Thompson's work over Leon James' for now, not sure I can easily follow Leon James' arguments and what I can follow I can't help but disagree with much of it at the moment...

Great essay by I. Thompson

 A summary of the new position is thus to say that specific objects are unions of form and power, of qualitative and dispositional aspects. They are structures of propensity, namely forms of substance, in a good Neo-Aristotelian manner. Forms may be examined in great deal by form-al sciences such as mathematics and logic, but no natural changes can be generated by formal constructions. For example, contemporary attempts in physics to construct ‘it from bit’ (to derive existence from form) can only produce a static (timeless) universe without changes or causes of change. We may instead say generously that forms are the means by which dispositional powers operate, since the power-substances can only operate if they are arranged in some form or structure that allows for interaction and movement. Conversely, forms can only have an impact on the world if they are the forms of some propensity, as thereby a physical object in the world is in existence, one that has powers to influence others. This is the basis for saying that objects in the world are required to be unions of form and power: they require powers to be in some form, and require forms to be of some power: the resulting union has an existence that goes beyond either ingredient by itself. In a natural object, the power and form are actually inseparable, and only abstractly distinct. We can (and should) intellectually distinguish them—as recent philosophers have emphasized—but that does that mean that they can ever exist apart.

http://www.generativescience.org/ph-papers/pas.htm

Great essay by I. Thompson


http://www.generativescience.org/ph-papers/pas.htm

Nice - I haven't gotten too far into Ian's work but much of what I started getting to in the Good Place thread relates to his examination of how we might define Substance.