Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[Sapiens]

Falsified huh? How so?

Was god talking to Son of Sam or Charles Manson or Jim Jones?

 

[Jollybear]

Was god talking to Son of Sam or Charles Manson or Jim Jones?

I see your point.

But it misunderstands my point.

Theres someone experiencing God talking. Thats one thing.

Its another thing where someone THINKS God is talking. And perhaps SOME spirit really is talking, but is masquerading as God.

So, theres a experience and theres an interpretation of an experience.

But when it comes to repeating an experience with God or some spirit, that cannot be done since that is the decision of God or any other spirit that may be involved.

But in the case of out of body travel, its something the person themselves can decide based on certain techniques in meditation. Hence SOME things in religion are repeatable and some things are not.

 

[Prometheus85]

I think SOME things in religion cannot be repeatable. An example is God talking to you in a audable voice. But why cant that be repeatable? Obvious, because thats GODS DECISION, not yours.

Now for other things, like out of body travel, theres things YOU can do to repeat this. And things everyone can do to do it for the first time. Hence its repeatable.

Also the word science seams to be hijacked at times by atheists and materialists as if to ASSUME the physical world is all there is.

The real motivation of science is the persuit of knowledge, wherever that may lead you.

Much like how science/scientist has been hijacked by Christians. And they sometimes claim that the existence of religious scientists is evidence for the validity of their religious beliefs. They argue that because men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo and Albert Einstein believes in God, god must exist because these men are scientist and belief in God has scientific underpinning. you know what I’m talking about jollybear...you already hijacked Albert Einstein. Taking his words outta context and then saying he was “religious” That type of argument is an informal fallacy.

 

[Jollybear]

Much like how science/scientist has been hijacked by Christians. And they sometimes claim that the existence of religious scientists is evidence for the validity of their religious beliefs. They argue that because men like Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo and Albert Einstein believes in God, god must exist because these men are scientist and belief in God has scientific underpinning. you know what I’m talking about jollybear...you already hijacked Albert Einstein. Taking his words outta context and then saying he was “religious” That type of argument is an informal fallacy.

First off, i dont agree with you about einstein.

Second of all, i dont believe science should be hijacked by religion or atheism.

I believe the real motivation of science should be and is the persuit of knowledge, wherever that may lead.

I just happen to believe it leads to a spiritual world exists, not just a physical one alone.

 

[Sapiens]

I see your point.

But it misunderstands my point.

No it does not, your point is a flight of fancy without supporting evidence.

Theres someone experiencing God talking. Thats one thing.

Its another thing where someone THINKS God is talking. And perhaps SOME spirit really is talking, but is masquerading as God.

There is no evidence of a god or spirits so they recipient must need psychiatry or audiology.

So, theres a experience and theres an interpretation of an experience.

There is a misapprehension of and experience and a further misapprehension via wrongheaded interpretation. Sheer foolishess.

But when it comes to repeating an experience with God or some spirit, that cannot be done since that is the decision of God or any other spirit that may be involved.

What a need cop-out, you do see the tautology, do you not?

But in the case of out of body travel, its something the personthemselves can decide based on certain techniques in meditation. Hence SOME things in religion are repeatable and some things are not.

It is all in your head, there is no evidence that it is real.

First off, i dont agree with you about einstein.

So, in this case, you are wrong about that too..

Second of all, i dont believe science should be hijacked by religion or atheism.

Science is not hijacked by either, it falsifies many religious claims and therefore tends to support atheism.

I believe the real motivation of science should be and is the persuit of knowledge, wherever that may lead.

Yup.

I just happen to believe it leads to a spiritual world exists, not just a physical one alone.

You seem to believe all manner of things that are unsupported by evidence or falsified by science.

 

[Jollybear]

No it does not, your point is a flight of fancy without supporting evidence.
There is no evidence of a god or spirits so they recipient must need psychiatry or audiology.
There is a misapprehension of and experience and a further misapprehension via wrongheaded interpretation. Sheer foolishess.
What a need cop-out, you do see the tautology, do you not?
It is all in your head, there is no evidence that it is real.

So, in this case, you are wrong about that too..
Science is not hijacked by either, it falsifies many religious claims and therefore tends to support atheism.
Yup.
You seem to believe all manner of things that are unsupported by evidence or falsified by science.

Everything you said here is strongly opinionated and unsupported by evidence.

Nothing ive said is a cop out either. We cant manipulate God or other spirits. They may not care about our tests.

Also yes you did misunderstand me. Your question about who talked to God above shows you misunderstood and so i clarified.

And there is evidence. You say these experiences are not real, there just in the head. I would differ with that because some of these experiences the experiencer verifies afterwards information that they saw or heard from there spiritual experience and it aligned. This rules out halucination.

 

[Milton Platt]

Unfortunately you took this from Anti-Islam propaganda. show me one verse in Quran or one sentence from the talks of our leader Mohammed the messenger indicating this. please don't tell me from ISIS leaders, whoever commit such crimes is not Muslim

Quran says whoever kill an innocent soul as if he killed all mankind. How this streamline with what you said. Please read from true sources about anything, before criticizing it.

Many Muslims say their country’s laws do not follow sharia, or Islamic law. At least half take

 

[cladking]

Once upon a time Mythology (and Religion) was the real science for humans - and it still can be as scientific as modern science. But OK, it demands a new interpretation of the symbolic/allegoric deity-terms as "non personal forces of creation" and it also demands an understanding of the numerous cultural Stories of Creation as a telling of the formation of our Milky Way galaxy and everything in it. including our Solar System.
IMO the mythical telling is more scientific and precise than much of the modern speculations which are contradicted time and time again because they are unnatural and illogical. "Dark this and that" have darkened the modern cosmological mind and we need a shift of paradigm into the ancient cyclical perception of everything.

Hi; I'm new here but will try to just jump in. My thinking has a tendency to annoy just about everyone so I might as well start with you.

I agree that what you call 'mythology and religion" were once the science of humanity. But, I believe that we wholly misunderstand Ancient Language in the same way that later people misunderstood the ancient writing that expressed that language.

All science is based in metaphysics which are the definitions and axioms. Modern science tends to be so simple that people forget this metaphysics and hence don't understand the meaning of experiment and theory. Modern science is founded in observation and experiment and is then expressed in our confused language and understood in terms of models. We make mental maps of reality as determined by experiment. We can't see that these mental maps are based principally in beliefs so we tend to be blind to the reality around us which is composed principally of things of which we are entirely or mostly ignorant.

Ancient science was far different. The biggest difference is that the universal language was its metaphysics. This is the exact same way animals communicate and it is the principle gift from nature which confers the ability to survive to animals. Animals don't become more adept through "natural selection" but rather they survive through their consciousness.

In Ancient Language, animal language, the gods are not deities of any sort whatsoever. They are placeholders for theory. Each "god" represented the known science that was derived from observation and logic. Logic is an effective means to study nature only when it is done in language that reflects reality and has the same natural logic that drives mathematics. Natural language, Ancient Language, reflects the wiring of the human brain so it is naturally logical and mathematical.

Shamanism, religion, and even science are based on confusions of ancient natural science. Indeed, almost everything in our day to day lives are based on such confusions. We are no closer to understanding reality than the great pyramid builders. Indeed, since the collapse of the tower we are individually and collectively less capable of understanding reality. I believe we are literally standing at the threshold of a change in this equation.

 

[cladking]

And this is the doorway to understanding;

 

[Audie]

Hi; I'm new here but will try to just jump in. My thinking has a tendency to annoy just about everyone so I might as well start with you.

I agree that what you call 'mythology and religion" were once the science of humanity. But, I believe that we wholly misunderstand Ancient Language in the same way that later people misunderstood the ancient writing that expressed that language.

All science is based in metaphysics which are the definitions and axioms. Modern science tends to be so simple that people forget this metaphysics and hence don't understand the meaning of experiment and theory. Modern science is founded in observation and experiment and is then expressed in our confused language and understood in terms of models. We make mental maps of reality as determined by experiment. We can't see that these mental maps are based principally in beliefs so we tend to be blind to the reality around us which is composed principally of things of which we are entirely or mostly ignorant.

Ancient science was far different. The biggest difference is that the universal language was its metaphysics. This is the exact same way animals communicate and it is the principle gift from nature which confers the ability to survive to animals. Animals don't become more adept through "natural selection" but rather they survive through their consciousness.

In Ancient Language, animal language, the gods are not deities of any sort whatsoever. They are placeholders for theory. Each "god" represented the known science that was derived from observation and logic. Logic is an effective means to study nature only when it is done in language that reflects reality and has the same natural logic that drives mathematics. Natural language, Ancient Language, reflects the wiring of the human brain so it is naturally logical and mathematical.

Shamanism, religion, and even science are based on confusions of ancient natural science. Indeed, almost everything in our day to day lives are based on such confusions. We are no closer to understanding reality than the great pyramid builders. Indeed, since the collapse of the tower we are individually and collectively less capable of understanding reality. I believe we are literally standing at the threshold of a change in this equation.

Oh dear.

 

[cladking]

Oh dear.

I get this a lot.

Do you have some specific objection?

Of course I knew you'd disagree with almost everything before I ever hit "post reply". This theory and perspective is alien to almost all belief. It does not contradict logic (so far as I can understand it) or experiment (to the degree I'm up to date and aware of it).

I believe it's a far better perspective for trying to understand reality than science, philosophy, or religion. In a sense, it is a perspective that is an amalgam of all of these.

 

[Audie]

I get this a lot.

Do you have some specific objection?

Of course I knew you'd disagree with almost everything before I ever hit "post reply". This theory and perspective is alien to almost all belief. It does not contradict logic (so far as I can understand it) or experiment (to the degree I'm up to date and aware of it).

I believe it's a far better perspective for trying to understand reality than science, philosophy, or religion. In a sense, it is a perspective that is an amalgam of all of these.

If you feel you have worked out something superior to
all of science phil and religion, and people say 'oh dear"
can you use some of this perspective and figure out what is going on in this picture?

 

[cladking]

If you feel you have worked out something superior to
all of science phil and religion, and people say 'oh dear"
can you use some of this perspective and figure out what is going on in this picture?

I'm pretty dense so I'm not sure if you're referring to my claim that everything everyone knows is wrong to a greater or lesser extent or the infrared picture above.

I believe we're all going to have to get used to the idea that virtually nothing, and certainly nothing important, is ever likely to be knowable. This isn't to say science can' get unstuck from the 1920's and lead to numerous marvelous and unpredictable new technologies. I'm merely saying we are asking the wrong questions and seeing things from the wrong perspective.

The thermal scan is at the end of a path that leads straight to the east side of the Great6 Pyramid 161' south of the NE corner. I believe there exists ancient writing written in Ancient Language that says the ancient equivalent of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics lies beyond carved in walls surrounding the second Sphinx. Incredibly this Sphinx was never entirely forgotten and appears in more modern ancient literature.

We are ignorant and can only catch glances of reality which was called "amun" by ancient people who were each scientists and metaphysicians. I believe there are better perspectives from which to view our own ignorance and from which scientific progress might be much more easily manifested. It is ignorance that manifests as anomalies and understanding that makes those anomalies explicable. It is science that explains and predicts so any science incapable of making prediction is not science at all.

 

[Sapiens]

I'm pretty dense so I'm not sure if you're referring to my claim that everything everyone knows is wrong to a greater or lesser extent or the infrared picture above.

I believe we're all going to have to get used to the idea that virtually nothing, and certainly nothing important, is ever likely to be knowable. This isn't to say science can' get unstuck from the 1920's and lead to numerous marvelous and unpredictable new technologies. I'm merely saying we are asking the wrong questions and seeing things from the wrong perspective.

The thermal scan is at the end of a path that leads straight to the east side of the Great6 Pyramid 161' south of the NE corner. I believe there exists ancient writing written in Ancient Language that says the ancient equivalent of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics lies beyond carved in walls surrounding the second Sphinx. Incredibly this Sphinx was never entirely forgotten and appears in more modern ancient literature.

We are ignorant and can only catch glances of reality which was called "amun" by ancient people who were each scientists and metaphysicians. I believe there are better perspectives from which to view our own ignorance and from which scientific progress might be much more easily manifested. It is ignorance that manifests as anomalies and understanding that makes those anomalies explicable. It is science that explains and predicts so any science incapable of making prediction is not science at all.

 

[cladking]

Rod Serling never dreamed up anything stranger or with a more surprising ending than the continual unfolding of reality.

...gotta hand it to him for trying.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree that what you call 'mythology and religion" were once the science of humanity.

Playing with words? Surely it was just common wisdom, since science didn't exist then - nor any proper knowledge about the world around them or about their own bodies or minds. This common wisdom was mostly inaccurate, hence the proliferation of useless remedies for many ailments. Although no doubt some were effective, since even many animals seem to know that some things are beneficial for them rather than just being food. From what I understand.

 

[cladking]

Playing with words?

No. I'm suggesting that what looks like myth, paganism, etc, etc are actually confusions of ancient science. Ancient scientific theory was expressed as what we think were "gods" and has come down to us as myth.

I am saying that modern science is only true within its metaphysics and our understanding of modern science and its ability to explain reality are more akin to "belief" than to knowing.

Ancient science provided little technology (cities and agriculture) but it provided a deep understanding of theory because theory was expressed as language. In other words theory was on the tip of everyone's tongue and grammar prevented misunderstanding of theory. The language was based on the same natural logic that drives mathematics and it is this same language which allowed termites to invent agriculture and air conditioned cities. It is the same language which beavers use to terraform the earth to their own purposes. It lies at the heart of the bees' waggle dance and is the source of consciousness itself which confers to individuals of every species the ability to survive.

All beliefs are superstitions so most understanding of science is a sort of superstition. But religion is actually real science expressed in a confused way.

Of course there is real science, real modern science, at the heart of our science but our understanding tends to be "superstitious".

 

[Mock Turtle]

No. I'm suggesting that what looks like myth, paganism, etc, etc are actually confusions of ancient science. Ancient scientific theory was expressed as what we think were "gods" and has come down to us as myth.

I am saying that modern science is only true within its metaphysics and our understanding of modern science and its ability to explain reality are more akin to "belief" than to knowing.

I would have thought that beliefs in earlier times were much more akin to faith, and that we have a firmer basis for our own 'beliefs', because they can be tested if we so desire. Being an ex-engineer, I know we can test the various scientific theories that lead to engineering, and where this was simply not possible long ago. I think we are quite justified in our own knowing - much of the time at least.

Ancient science provided little technology (cities and agriculture) but it provided a deep understanding of theory because theory was expressed as language. In other words theory was on the tip of everyone's tongue and grammar prevented misunderstanding of theory. The language was based on the same natural logic that drives mathematics and it is this same language which allowed termites to invent agriculture and air conditioned cities. It is the same language which beavers use to terraform the earth to their own purposes. It lies at the heart of the bees' waggle dance and is the source of consciousness itself which confers to individuals of every species the ability to survive.

All beliefs are superstitions so most understanding of science is a sort of superstition. But religion is actually real science expressed in a confused way.

Of course there is real science, real modern science, at the heart of our science but our understanding tends to be "superstitious".

I have little superstition with regards my belief in science, but I am well aware of the difficulties of science in approaching any fundamental truths simply because they derive from humans - and we know humans have inherent problems of various sorts to make this so.

I just have huge doubts about anything from the past, particularly when the fundamental knowledge then was almost on the level of most animal species around today. Most animal species will probably not realise they live on a round object orbiting a ferociously hot other object or that both of these are just examples of countless others - with planets such as ours actually being more common than stars apparently. Without any of the things we take for granted now, telescopes, microscopes, etc., what kind of picture could have been formed long ago that reflected reality in any real way? Plus the fact that they had no real knowledge then about all the physical phenomena occurring then, such as volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., which, for me, is one reason why religious beliefs developed in the first place - to explain such events.

I must say that I find it difficult to understand what they might have had as beliefs much earlier, although undoubtedly they will have had many that did work for them, because we can see this in animal behaviour too, where knowledge is passed on even though written language probably didn't exist during this time. Still, my knowledge of the past, so far back, is rather limited I will admit since it is not an area that has drawn me over many others.

Edit: And I didn't even mention the issues with not understanding our own human nature or how our thinking is so very vulnerable in many ways.

 

[cladking]

Without any of the things we take for granted now, telescopes, microscopes, etc., what kind of picture could have been formed long ago that reflected reality in any real way? Plus the fact that they had no real knowledge then about all the physical phenomena occurring then, such as volcanos, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc., which, for me, is one reason why religious beliefs developed in the first place - to explain such events.

You raise some excellent points but for right now just this;

The nature of a tool determines the work that can be performed by it. The nature of the tool essentially determines the job. Humans acquired a complex language 40,000 years ago through a mutation that more closely tied the language center to the rest of the brain. This allowed closer cooperation in their activities but, far more importantly, it allowed complex ideas and knowledge to be passed down generationally. The results of their simple observational science accumulated for 40,000 years. These results were all added to the language so everyone could use them by learning language.

Because observational science is fundamentally different than experimental science it proceeded much differently and more slowly. But, it did proceed. I have been working on deducing their knowledge base and believe I have even rediscovered their means to determine the speed of light. Their science was rather remarkable but it produced little technology compared to ours. Even if they had technology though they still would have lacked the modern materials we take for granted to build complex machines.

Think of it this way; no animal was ever saved from death or survived an event due to superstition. An animal to survive needs skills and alertness not speed and beliefs. It needs a consciousness tied to others of its species and an appreciation of the characteristics and behaviors of other species. Nature provides ONLY this for survival. There are no gods and no beliefs that confer survival. Even the fastest and strongest will die if they are out of step.

Proto-humans had a natural ability to think and act and this was expressed individually as simple language. But when complex language arose this simple language began becoming more complex as new learning was added to it.

Most modern beliefs and superstitions including our understanding of science is simply a confusion of ancient knowledge. There's nothing wrong with science but we need to teach much more metaphysics to excise the superstitious understanding of it. With more metaphysics we should be far more adept at seeing the anomalies that are everywhere. Since it is principally the study of anomalies that lead to real understanding science should advance more rapidly.

 

[Mock Turtle]

You raise some excellent points but for right now just this;

The nature of a tool determines the work that can be performed by it. The nature of the tool essentially determines the job. Humans acquired a complex language 40,000 years ago through a mutation that more closely tied the language center to the rest of the brain. This allowed closer cooperation in their activities but, far more importantly, it allowed complex ideas and knowledge to be passed down generationally. The results of their simple observational science accumulated for 40,000 years. These results were all added to the language so everyone could use them by learning language.

Is this coming from genetic evidence or from elsewhere or both?

Because observational science is fundamentally different than experimental science it proceeded much differently and more slowly. But, it did proceed. I have been working on deducing their knowledge base and believe I have even rediscovered their means to determine the speed of light. Their science was rather remarkable but it produced little technology compared to ours. Even if they had technology though they still would have lacked the modern materials we take for granted to build complex machines.

I'm sure a rather large leap of faith would be necessary for many here.

Think of it this way; no animal was ever saved from death or survived an event due to superstition. An animal to survive needs skills and alertness not speed and beliefs. It needs a consciousness tied to others of its species and an appreciation of the characteristics and behaviors of other species. Nature provides ONLY this for survival. There are no gods and no beliefs that confer survival. Even the fastest and strongest will die if they are out of step.

Proto-humans had a natural ability to think and act and this was expressed individually as simple language. But when complex language arose this simple language began becoming more complex as new learning was added to it.

Most modern beliefs and superstitions including our understanding of science is simply a confusion of ancient knowledge. There's nothing wrong with science but we need to teach much more metaphysics to excise the superstitious understanding of it. With more metaphysics we should be far more adept at seeing the anomalies that are everywhere. Since it is principally the study of anomalies that lead to real understanding science should advance more rapidly.

I'll leave aside any opinions until I view the evidence.

I think our current science has more than enough of a firm basis to see off any other contenders.

I recently bought a book on a whim - Precessional Time and The Evolution of Consciousness, by Richard heath. I looked inside and was rather dismayed at what was there. It has not been read yet, or perhaps ever, since it just feels so completely alien, and I feel what you are saying is in the same vein. But I am open to all sorts of ideas - before I usually reject them - which was the case with virtually all religions - Buddhism being the one with the least unattractive thinking for me.