Science cannot solve the final mystery

[tas8831]

Can you show a 'truth' about the natural world that was derived via religion?

Modern science was largely an outgrowth of religious writing and thought.

Science and religion have never been polar opposites and never will be. Religious people must use reason to function and scientific people are just as superstitious as anyone else.

So the actual answer to my question:

"Can you show a 'truth' about the natural world that was derived via religion?"

is a resounding NO.

Thanks!

 

[tas8831]

"When I say that we all see what we believe this is EVIDENCE."

No it isn't.

It is an assertion.

This has been shown to be true many many times by Look and See Science.

I have no idea what you mean by this made-up nonsense.

Is that what you call actual science, as opposed to your "If I can fantasize about it, it must be TRUE!!! " fake science that you peddle?

There also is extensive anecdotal evidence and some experimental evidence.

I'm surprised you aren't aware of this.

Not as surprised as I am that you never present any of this evidence, just a bunch of repetitive assertions.

 

[tas8831]

Hancock is irrelevant to this argument.

Yet you linked to his crankery.

I linked to a thread that shows literally hundreds of times that the builders literally said the pyramid is the dead king and not a tomb.

Great.

You wrote this in May on another forum (and similar pap here):

"Survival of the fittest" (by any name at all) becomes a rallying cry for those who would suppress or attempt to control the masses. "


You truly do not know what that phrase means, and you appear to have no desire to correct your error.

Why is that?

I won't even mention your folly on "broccas area". Why the pretense? Why is humility to hard for so many creationist types?

 

[tas8831]

we get to ask God.....how?

how do you say?......I AM!
with no means to do so

Why do you believe that this even occurred?

 

[tas8831]

Actually you did here:

That is like the 3rd of 4th time that he has denied something he did. Seems to be a bit of trend among creationists on here to do this sort of thing.

 

[tas8831]

think.....
God.....then creation

I AM!

You are...

???

 

[cladking]

Yet you linked to his crankery.

I DID NO SUCH THING.

If you actually had followed the link rather than ASSUMED it was crankery you mightta learned something. It's not likely because you can't believe something that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Fortunately Hancock does not need my support but the fact is he can be very insightful and this is irrelevant to the link, my post, and every point I've made.

 

[cladking]

I have very little or no confidence in Graham Hancock.

Apparently it's not necessary to even read something to know whether it's true or not.

This is ironic since Egyptology is no LONGER ALLOWING PEERS TO SEE THE DATA before they hold a vote on what it means!

The King as Pyramid - Graham Hancock Official Website

 

[paarsurrey]

“Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.”


Relativity, the Absolute, the Human Search for Truth: Nobel Laureate and Quantum Theory Originator Max Planck on Science and Mystery

Did it solve the starting mystery, please?
Regards

 

[shunyadragon]

Apparently it's not necessary to even read something to know whether it's true or not.

This is ironic since Egyptology is no LONGER ALLOWING PEERS TO SEE THE DATA before they hold a vote on what it means!

The King as Pyramid - Graham Hancock Official Website

Still citing an unqualified person, Graham Hancock, you denied citing to support your argument. What gives?!?!

 

[shunyadragon]

how about...…..?
I believe in science
and because I do

I believe in God

I believe in cause and effect

so.....I believe in God

Spirit first

Nothing here about your claim I made unwarranted assumptions. Virtually everyone claims to believe in science even those who do not believe evolution and an ancient earth more than billions years old.

OK you believe in God.

 

[Thief]

So the actual answer to my question:

"Can you show a 'truth' about the natural world that was derived via religion?"

is a resounding NO.

Thanks!

try YouTube

it's not religion

but that's ok

I don't have a religion

 

[Thief]

Nothing here about your claim I made unwarranted assumptions. Virtually everyone claims to believe in science even those who do not believe evolution and an ancient earth more than billions years old.

OK you believe in God.

It's simple

regression is the arrow of time in reverse

Someone had to be First

and all you CAN do...….is THINK about it

 

[cladking]

Still citing an unqualified person, Graham Hancock, you denied citing to support your argument. What gives?!?!

You're kidding, right?

You aren't going to open the link are you? Rather than give a cogent argument against what is said you'll just stick to your guns that nothing Hancock says can be real.

You probably can't see what is there anyway since it is far too far outside your beliefs.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's simple

The following are assertions that are not simple and without context.

. . . regression is the arrow of time in reverse

Odd. Explanation needed

Someone had to be First.

A philosophical/theological claim. By the evidence no one has to be first.

and all you CAN do...….is THINK about it.

I hope we can do better than that. It would turn us into vegetables that do nothing.

I do not make unfounded assumptions of your beliefs. I do challenge the content of your posts and nothing beyond that. Absolutely nothing beyond that.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're kidding, right?

You aren't going to open the link are you? Rather than give a cogent argument against what is said you'll just stick to your guns that nothing Hancock says can be real.

You probably can't see what is there anyway since it is far too far outside your beliefs.

I have read the link and have known about Hancock for a long time. He does not even have any knowledge nor education background in hieroglyphics nor Egyptology. He is a rank ameteur.

 

[shunyadragon]

You're kidding, right?

You aren't going to open the link are you? Rather than give a cogent argument against what is said you'll just stick to your guns that nothing Hancock says can be real.

You probably can't see what is there anyway since it is far too far outside your beliefs.

I have no beliefs in this case that are inside nor outside my beliefs, I emphasize academic standards and competence, which Hancock lacks,

 

[atanu]

Did it solve the starting mystery, please?
Regards

I am a scientist and I believe that all objects and objective phenomenon are best studied by application of scientific method only.

This thread is to try to raise awareness that indeed there are eminent physicians who place the subject, the self, as a different category from the objects.

So, esteemed Max Planck says that the ultimate mystery is 'ourselves' that science cannot solve. Who will know the knower? Who will see the seer?

 

[Thief]

The following are assertions that are not simple and without context.



Odd. Explanation needed



A philosophical/theological claim. By the evidence no one has to be first.



I hope we can do better than that. It would turn us into vegetables that do nothing.

I do not make unfounded assumptions of your beliefs. I do challenge the content of your posts and nothing beyond that. Absolutely nothing beyond that.

your denial as taken a turn for the worst

 

[Thief]

Who will know the knower? Who will see the seer?

and you won't?...….ever?