Skwim
Veteran Member
I can, and with a belly button no lessBy the way, I can show you a picture of a pink unicorn, but you cannot show me a picture of God.
because . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can, and with a belly button no lessBy the way, I can show you a picture of a pink unicorn, but you cannot show me a picture of God.
Agree.Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain.
I don't agree with this as much though. I think you might benefit reading one of Ken Wilber's books.Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
That hypothesis and any related ones can be assessed using the physical sciences. We as human beings (currently) are significantly limited in our ability to do so fully, though we can still do it, albeit with a lot of assumptions but someone/something which itself existed outside space and time wouldn’t have such a restriction and could use science even more effectively. Science itself isn't the limiting factor, we are.The primary cause transcends both space and time. As such, it is beyond the purview of the physical sciences.
Consciousness is certainly subjecting to the "owner". That doesn't mean it can't be objective when viewed from the outside. After all, some "object" much bring it to be, whether than is the brain alone or more than that and that could be studied. Again, we might need to use some assumptions and might not reach all the definitive conclusions but that it's the same as throwing science out completely.Also, consciousness is inherently subjective, not objective. So, it is also beyond the purview of the physical sciences.
I can give you a list of paranormal things with better evidence than pink unicorns. Your attempt to equate them is silly.
Things seriously studied in the last 150 years of modern parapsychology research.Just what is this list of things? I'm curious to know.
Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain. Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
It is true that Science (as we now practice it and as we *should* practice it) is concerned only with efficient causes. I would say that not just Religion is concerned with final causes, but a person's philosophy as a whole is. Richard Dawkins concerns himself with final causes when he speaks or writes about "Cranes supporting cranes" (ultimately in some sorta circular manner) as an alternative to a "Skyhook". Owen Gingerich might disagree with you (and with Stephen Jay Gould) about the "non-overlapping magisteria".Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain. Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein
The Devil's Dictionary? Ghost clothes? I'm not following any train to your arguments, sorry. We can discuss 1,001 individual things each deserving a separate thread. This thread is about conflict between religion and science.
But anyway, above the physical plane your appearance is controlled by your thoughts. You look the way you think you look to others. And yes you can change your clothes by thought. On the physical plane matter is heavy and psycho-kinetic abilities are extremely small.
Science doesn't yet understand PK (psycho-kinetics) but it happens. But in the end I believe matter is all a product of consciousness.Explain the psychophysiology and mechanism of that for us scientifically.
Science doesn't yet understand PK (psycho-kinetics) but it happens. But in the end I believe matter is all a product of consciousness.
Science doesn't yet understand PK (psycho-kinetics) but it happens. But in the end I believe matter is all a product of consciousness.
No, religion is involved in wishful thinking.Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain. Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein
Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain. Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein
Shawn...all I'm saying is I believe PK exists on the physical and astral planes from examination of all the anecdotal evidence and argumentation; my opinion. I am also saying although I believe it exists, I do not know the 'psychophysiology' of how it all works. So what is your point here?This was a question you again completely ignored.
"Explain the psychophysiology and mechanism of that for us scientifically."
.
Science and religion are not necessarily in conflict providing that each stays within its proper domain. Science is concerned with secondary causes (i.e. physical causes). Religion is concerned with the primary cause (i.e. God). Science is concerned with efficient causality. Religion is concerned with final causality.
"Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame” - Albert Einstein
Shawn...all I'm saying is I believe PK exists on the physical and astral planes from examination of all the anecdotal evidence and argumentation; my opinion. I am also saying although I believe it exists, I do not know the 'psychophysiology' of how it all works. So what is your point here?
You don't read what I write. Please re-read. I said 'anecdotal evidence' which is the empirical experiences of others.So you just "believe" it exists, and there is no empirical evidence. .
I suspect he's denying the veracity of your claim.You don't read what I write. Please re-read. I said 'anecdotal evidence' which is the empirical experiences of others.