Science vs Faith

[Thief]

You start with science, move to conjecture, then bold empty conclusion.

same old retort

 

[McBell]

same old retort

No need for new retorts to your old song and dance.

 

[gnostic]

an object at rest will remain at rest
science also claims all of this universe was held in one location....a singularity

Science still don't know what the singularity is. There are many hypothetical speculations, but none of them have been confirmed.

We don't know if the singularity - or the universe at its most primordial state - was "at rest" or not, because like I have said before science still don't know enough. So, if you think the pre-Big Bang universe was "at rest", then you are just speculating.

And this...

so the universe was set in motion.....

...again, is just more speculation. How do you know universe wasn't already "in motion"?

and substance is NOT self starting

Spirit first

And this is pure and utter bull.

Science doesn't say anything about a who. This is just, like mestemia have said, a bold empty claim.

"Empty", as in "baseless". You are simply letting your religious bias to dogmatically make claims that you have never been able to substantiate.

This "spirit" would have no more substance of starting the universe than me saying that the leprechaun or pink unicorn or the great invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster "did it".

You are still using and saying the "spirit first" bull#### for years, when you really know that there is no evidences for what you say. Did you forget that have this before: "You can't put God on petri-dish"?

You are right about that, thief, your biased argument have no substance, no credibility.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round.....what is the difference between the experience and that who interprets the experience?

I meant that "spiritual" experiences are inherently subjective, and don't necessarily correlate to anything outside our own minds. I think we need to be cautious about projecting out our subjective experiences, and using them to define the cosmos in some sense.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

No need for new retorts to your old song and dance.

 

[McBell]

Please do not insult Mary Poppins, Dick Van Dyke, or Chim Chimery, by associating them with Thiefs old outdated song and dance.

 

[Thief]

up and coming....actually
more and more....science and religion are melting together

it's not as the title of my thread suggests

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I meant that "spiritual" experiences are inherently subjective, and don't necessarily correlate to anything outside our own minds. I think we need to be cautious about projecting out our subjective experiences, and using them to define the cosmos in some sense.

How is asking the question as to what and who one really is, in the context of meditation practice, projecting one's experience?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How is asking the question as to what and who one really is, in the context of meditation practice, projecting one's experience?

Those kind of questions are one thing. Questions about the nature of the cosmos are another.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Those kind of questions are one thing. Questions about the nature of the cosmos are another.

I can understand why you may think that....but it is possible that when one truly knows what and who they are in the context of cosmos, they may turn out not to be two different natures....just sayin..