Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Unification]

Yes brain, yes cells, yes organic matter, etc. No mind, just brain, no need for a pretend division just so you can be ever-so-special. Seems you and "unification" prefer false dichotomy ... ever so strange.

I am very curious about true/false duality of dichotomy you propose. What is the "need" for this duality and division?

Considering that all human beings have the same brain and it's same exact material components, why do you consider your material brain true and others material brain false?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No mind, just brain....

Excuse me...but did you not go to school and learn about mind and the definition thereof? Here, I googled it for you.....https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hgVqVueVK4m70AT9uLC4CA Btw...it may or may seem relevant but did you know that only 2.5% of the stuff that makes up the theoretical universe can be detected by contemporary science...the physical part....97.5% can not yet be detected...materialism speaks with blinkers on...

 

[Sapiens]

You're naturally special.

Why worry about what you consider "false dichotomy"...... does this make you more ever-so-special because you feel you have "true dichotomy?" Ever so strange, creating a pretend division yet being against it.

No ... I maintain that there is NO dichotomy, keep your eye one the target ... "true" and "false" are just adjectives, "dichotomy" is the subject of the discussion.

I am very curious about true/false duality of dichotomy you propose. What is the "need" for this duality and division?

Considering that all human beings have the same brain and it's same exact material components, why do you consider your material brain true and others material brain false?

Identical twins who ate identical meals and were exposed to identical stimuli might approach having the "same brain" as a limit, but most of what you are proposing is just one unsupported claim after another.

Excuse me...but did you not go to school and learn about mind and the definition thereof? Here, I googled it for you.....https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=hgVqVueVK4m70AT9uLC4CA Btw...it may or may seem relevant but did you know that only 2.5% of the stuff that makes up the theoretical universe can be detected by contemporary science...the physical part....97.5% can not yet be detected...materialism speaks with blinkers on...

No, materialism just doesn't make it up as it goes along.

BTW: using your link:

mind
mʌɪnd/
noun

1. 1.
   the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
   "a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception; More
2. 2.
   a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.
   "his keen mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception;

Indeed I did go to school and one of the first things I learned was to make sure that my citations supported my arguments. You will notice that the first synonym, in both cases, for "mind" is "brain." The point you were struggling to make was what? Did you bother to read your citations and consider, even for a moment, their meaning?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, materialism just doesn't make it up as it goes along.

BTW: using your link:

mind
mʌɪnd/
noun

1. 1.
   the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
   "a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception; More
2. 2.
   a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.
   "his keen mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception;

Indeed I did go to school and one of the first things I learned was to make sure that my citations supported my arguments. You will notice that the first synonym, in both cases, for "mind" is "brain." The point you were struggling to make was what? Did you bother to read your citations and consider, even for a moment, their meaning?

So you accept there is no no mind..iow...there is mind.... Why did you deny it in the first place?

Materialism is trying to understand reality with only 2.5% of the data...what could go wrong? ...haha

 

[psychoslice]

And the same applies to Santa Claus, fairies, God, cosmic consciousness, space-aliens and so on.

Yep true, I don't know about cosmic consciousness though ?.

 

[psychoslice]

There are one-horned animals, and horse-like horned (granted two horns) animals exist, and genetically, there's nothing that would scientifically stop nature to have produced a one-horned horse that we haven't found yet. So science can say something about unicorns, but even if it couldn't and we don't have any unicorns alive or evidence of, we can't just dismiss the possibility of their existence in the past. (I doubt they existed, but still, there's no 100% guarantee either way for past existence.)

I think you know what I was getting at though ?.

 

[Unification]

No ... I maintain that there is NO dichotomy, keep your eye one the target ... "true" and "false" are just adjectives, "dichotomy" is the subject of the discussion.

Identical twins who ate identical meals and were exposed to identical stimuli might approach having the "same brain" as a limit, but most of what you are proposing is just one unsupported claim after another.
No, materialism just doesn't make it up as it goes along.

BTW: using your link:

mind
mʌɪnd/
noun

1. 1.
   the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought.
   "a lot of thoughts ran through my mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception; More
2. 2.
   a person's ability to think and reason; the intellect.
   "his keen mind"
   synonyms: brain, intelligence, intellect, intellectual capabilities, mental capacity,brains, brainpower, wits, wit, powers of reasoning, powers of comprehension, powers of thought, understanding, reasoning,judgement, sense, mentality, perception;

Notice that the first synonym, in both cases, for "mind" is "brain." The point you were struggling to make was what?

Right, no dichotomy so no point in debating. The subsets of "true" or "false" don't exist. You debate against duality using duality though.

No, materialism just slaps labels on non-material by calling it and assuming it material. What we can't visibly see or test... let's call it material. What we experience..let's call it material. Effects...lets deem that material also. Matter isn't even a fundamental term used in physics and is becoming more and more irrelevant. New discoveries lead to leaving much of the old behind. That's where your dichotomy above fails. . you believe that you can stay in an ancient and old material shell and ignore new findings.

Please provide support that a spec of intellect, a spec of reasoning, a spec of thought, and a spec of understanding, a spec of power, a spec of awareness, a spec of consciousness are material and reside in the brain itself. Until then, what you're saying is unsupported and are your beliefs.

Hypothetically even if it's material that manufactures intellect, reasoning, thoughts, understanding, power, awareness, consciousness... those are not material.

So let's agree that there is no mind, there still is non-matter interacting with matter. The two are dual but one.
There still are waves interacting with particles. The two are dual but one.

The point this entire time is not whether there is a mind or not... it's about if the human being is composed of all matter or not.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

Ok it's a 2014 op but......

I would say that would be a siginifent problem for theists.

 

[Unification]

So you accept there is no no mind..iow...there is mind.... Why did you deny it in the first place?

Materialism is trying to understand reality with only 2.5% of the data...what could go wrong? ...haha

What goes wrong is they've already assumed the other 97.5% as matter and hide in that ancient shell by saying all else is false dichotomy.

Without realization that they've "assumed" the 97.5% as matter themselves which is strictly belief and faith.

Hide hide hide hiding while saying: "prove that it's not matter." "We don't know and understand what dark matter is but we labeled and assumed it matter."

 

[Unification]

Yep true, I don't know about cosmic consciousness though ?.

Yes, we know that the cosmos exists, that we came from the cosmos and we are considered "conscious." I know that you know of this.

The combining of the two words offend some.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes, we know that the cosmos exists, that we came from the cosmos and we are considered "conscious." I know that you know of this.

The combining of the two words offend some.

Thanks, yes I do know, but I would never argue that I was right, I didn't think there was enough scientific proof ?.

 

[Unification]

Thanks, yes I do know, but I would never argue that I was right, I didn't think there was enough scientific proof ?.

That's where the line is amongst us reasoning beings... we walk around as breathing and being phenomena while defying science and logic. The proof is ourselves and being aware and humble enough to know and admit such. It's as if many want to portray ourselves as below and not worthy of science because we ourselves defy science. Our experiences are phenomena that science has no explanation for and we are just supposed to view ourselves as delusional and as a false reality because science has yet found proof. Its like spending our entire lives worrying about what science has to say is reality rather than just embracing the real experience and not giving a damn what others think about it. It's silly. . to be free from that is wonderful.

Then you can say that you're "right" for not arguing that you're "right."

You're a humble man for not arguing that you're right.... if only others would be as humble to not condemn others experience or choice of words. Demanding proof for your own inner experiences and condemning your experience as false and delusional because it's not scientific reality is where peace is taken away. Then again, many take away their own peace by trying relentlessly to prove themselves to others when there is no need to.

 

[psychoslice]

That's where the line is amongst us reasoning beings... we walk around as breathing and being phenomena while defying science and logic. The proof is ourselves and being aware and humble enough to know and admit such. It's as if many want to portray ourselves as below and not worthy of science because we ourselves defy science. Our experiences are phenomena that science has no explanation for and we are just supposed to view ourselves as delusional and as a false reality because science has yet found proof. Its like spending our entire lives worrying about what science has to say is reality rather than just embracing the real experience and not giving a damn what others think about it. It's silly. . to be free from that is wonderful.

Then you can say that you're "right" for not arguing that you're "right."

You're a humble man for not arguing that you're right.... if only others would be as humble to not condemn others experience or choice of words. Demanding proof for your own inner experiences and condemning your experience as false and delusional because it's not scientific reality is where peace is taken away. Then again, many take away their own peace by trying relentlessly to prove themselves to others when there is no need to.

Yes, very nicely said my friend.

 

[Unification]

Yes, very nicely said my friend.

Thanks, bud.

 

[Ouroboros]

Experience is real when memory is so flawed? How do you square that circle?

Memory is only a flawed storage of the experience. An experience isn't the memory. Different things.

 

[Sapiens]

That's where the line is amongst us reasoning beings... we walk around as breathing and being phenomena while defying science and logic. The proof is ourselves and being aware and humble enough to know and admit such. It's as if many want to portray ourselves as below and not worthy of science because we ourselves defy science. Our experiences are phenomena that science has no explanation for and we are just supposed to view ourselves as delusional and as a false reality because science has yet found proof. Its like spending our entire lives worrying about what science has to say is reality rather than just embracing the real experience and not giving a damn what others think about it. It's silly. . to be free from that is wonderful.

Then you can say that you're "right" for not arguing that you're "right."

You're a humble man for not arguing that you're right.... if only others would be as humble to not condemn others experience or choice of words. Demanding proof for your own inner experiences and condemning your experience as false and delusional because it's not scientific reality is where peace is taken away. Then again, many take away their own peace by trying relentlessly to prove themselves to others when there is no need to.

Yeah, sounds good at first, but then read it a second time, parse carefully and identify the unsupported claims, it pales rather quickly as you discover that all that's there, unsupported and unsupportable claims, a clarion call to live the unexamined life.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yep true, I don't know about cosmic consciousness though ?.

To me it all looks like clutching at metaphysical straws, imagination and wishful thinking. A strong need to add religious meaning to experience. An addiction to magical thinking. It can lead to a delusional state, people invest so much emotionally in their fantasy that they think of it as real and then they become very defensive when their distorted perceptions are challenged.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Thanks, yes I do know, but I would never argue that I was right, I didn't think there was enough scientific proof ?.

There is also the "proof" of personal experience, but some people seem to have a very low threshold, there is a slightly desperate need to believe in something - anything.
The more people get wrapped up in concepts about experience the less they can actually experience the present in an authentic way. The muddle up concept and reality.

 

[psychoslice]

There is also the "proof" of personal experience, but some people seem to have a very low threshold, there is a slightly desperate need to believe in something - anything.

Yes and this is why I don't believe in anything, nothing at all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes and this is why I don't believe in anything, nothing at all.

I think that's a wise approach, it means that you have an open mind. Beliefs are like coloured spectacles, they distort perception. The stronger the belief the greater the distortion.