Science vs Faith

[George-ananda]

While I can appreciate the existence of paranormal phenomena (I've done some reading on it myself),

So perhaps we are actually agreeing on current science's limited reach. There are more than just a few refinements left to go.

I find it hard to extrapolate additional planes of nature and life forms without physical bodies from it,

A lot of paranormal phenomena that I have studied include discarnate entities (life forms without physical bodies including in NDEs). Also eastern/Indian wisdom traditions teach of these planes/realms of nature outside of current science's dimensional and vibrational reach. And these planes are experienced by western gifted seers.

or the fact that about the 96% of the universe lies outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments.


.

This is a fact in that dark matter/energy (not directly detectable by our senses or physical instruments) constitutes the overwhelming majority of the matter/energy in the universe. It's a strange, strange world we live in Mr. Skwim.

 

[Skwim]

This is a fact in that dark matter/energy (not directly detectable by our senses or physical instruments) constitutes the overwhelming majority of the matter/energy in the universe.

Yes, but to contend that "about the 96% of the universe lies outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments."suggest that it will always be so. I don't buy it, and see no reason why one should.


.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes, but to contend that "about the 96% of the universe lies outside of our 3D linear time experience and direct observation by our senses and instruments."suggest that it will always be so. I don't buy it, and see no reason why one should.


.

Wait a minute, you might have assumed something in my comment I didn't intend. I am only talking about our current science, the limits can possibly be expanded to reach everything in future science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Actually, reality cannot be comprehended by this imaginary Absolute or Ultimate thingy of yours, whether you call this thingy, "God", "Creator", "Brahman", "Tao", "Nirvana", etc.

What are you trying to say.....no one disputes that anything imaginary is capable of comprehension?

So far as comprehension goes....names are just symbols to represent reality...they are not real in and of themselves except as concepts...do you understand?

There is nothing imaginary about the reality represented by the concept of absolute reality...it is that which is the sum total of all existence....simple to comprehend yes?

 

[Acim]

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

A touch? If the 'investigation of the natural world' is based on physicality, then faith is (absolutely) at the foundation. Once that faith is in place, it'll work exactly as you / all of us perceive it to be working.

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

I believe it possible, and perhaps likely until I learn otherwise, but balance it with philosophical and spiritual axioms. Thus, I take it with a grain of salt, and essentially entertain the idea as a worthy, perhaps strong consideration until I learn otherwise.

Some of what passes 'for science' I continue to find questionable, like expressions of "you wouldn't have a keyboard to type on were it not for science" are things I doubt as truly applicable to science.

 

[Thief]

I believe the creation created the "Creator".

the dead cannot beget the living

 

[Thief]

So, your only source of knowledge about science is what some producer and writer with some sort of agenda, fancy graphics, and a paid narrator, have told you about science???

Have you ever had a more than introductory-level science course, where you actually had to demonstrate your understanding of science?



Do you doubt about science because you REALLY UNDERSTAND what it is you're doubting, or is it because it's easier to listen to and believe what someone with an agenda and pretty graphics told you so?

You talk about science in general, as if the sciences are one thing, and your understanding and objections apply to all. I'd much rather you present a very particular issue, so we can actually look at the issues and discuss them, rather than generalizing...

I have little doubt about science
plenty for those who attempt to separate science and faith
plenty for those who attempt to separate the Creator from His creation

and(btw) ...when I was soooooo much younger....
my school was chosen for a random gov survey test....the gov wanted to know how the kids were doing

my test result in science came back ranking me superior....
math score 'way up there'

I've gotten a lot better since then

 

[Acim]

Factually, there is not a more logically consistent way of explaining and understanding the nature of existence than the scientific method. I challenge you to contradict that statement. It cannot be done.

Laughable.

Laughable because there isn't truly one scientific method, that actual scientists use, though you seem to think so.
Laughable because said method in most instances are said to rule out certain existences it deems non-verifiable.
Laughable because the method itself is a mental construct, existing only in minds. Thus on par with a whole lot of other mental constructs, and provided favoritism (or lack there of) in a subjective way, as your assertion makes abundantly clear.
Laughable because of the language being used. The hyperbole. Like if I say provide objective evidence for the existence of physicality. I challenge you to do it. It cannot be done. Yep, laughable like that. Might be accurate, but still funny way to phrase it.

 

[Thief]

Thing about science is you can pretty much go and see the results for yourself first hand.

Go to museums, tour a nuclear plant, participate in experiments, view things through a telescope or microscope, aquire a discipline in science at your chosen university.

There of course are mysteries that science hasn't been able to uncover and solve, there is speculation, ideas, and theories that are layed out.

It wouldn't be belief though. Passionate perhaps, strattling that grey area with one's own ideology with factual data.

Belief indicates comfirmation, but lacks that basis for which it can be approached and explored, and demonstrated to others.

I don't think science is belief at all. Just educated guesses in respect to the undiscovered and mysterious.

nowadays the new discoveries won't fit in the petri dish....or the library.....or the museum....

and just like the people at the chalkboard....
all you can really do...is think about it all

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I have little doubt about science
plenty for those who attempt to separate science and faith
plenty for those who attempt to separate the Creator from His creation

and(btw) ...when I was soooooo much younger....
my school was chosen for a random gov survey test....the gov wanted to know how the kids were doing

my test result in science came back ranking me superior....
math score 'way up there'

I've gotten a lot better since then

Good for you. You should have no trouble providing a specific example for consideration, then.

 

[Thief]

Good for you. You should have no trouble providing a specific example for consideration, then.

cause and effect ARE the line of thought

choose.....substance first?......or Spirit?

keep science in mind as you do so

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

cause and effect ARE the line of thought

choose.....substance first?......or Spirit?

keep science in mind as you do so

What does the evidence show?

Does the evidence show that there is a Giant Spirit that causes everything that is now? (Exactly what evidence would that be? What testable, refutable property would we be measuring that would conclusively show that such a Spirit existed/exists?)

Does the evidence show that there is a point in space and time, when our understanding of the laws of physics break down, and we can at this time only speculate about what occurred before that point?

Does the evidence show that our current universe has existed unchanged forever?

Or does the evidence show something else?

Or is the evidence at this point in time inconclusive?

 

[g2perk]

Good for you, and others like yourself who have such a need. Obviously religion serves you well. Some of us are bit luckier and don't need to split our time and energies with religious devotion, leaving us with better ability to pursue whatever avocations strike our fancy.


.

We don't see it like any extra step it is considered a gift fr I god.

 

[Skwim]

We don't see it like any extra step it is considered a gift fr I god.

"A gift from god"? And you do realize, don't you, that the whole thing comes down to the following?

....THINK ABOUT IT. If you need an explanation just ask.


​

 

[gnostic]

There is nothing imaginary about the reality represented by the concept of absolute reality...it is that which is the sum total of all existence....simple to comprehend yes?

No.

I actually do understand the concept of "absolute reality".

I just find all versions (including your brand) of philosophical or religious concepts of the "absolute" to be absurd...because the concepts often strayed from "reality", especially when one of these go on about transcendence or cosmic "consciousness", or they have the "spiritual" or "god" component.

Nothing about god or spirit is ever absolute. And it is the same this eternal consciousness.

If I ask you what is cosmic consciousness, follow by how do you know that it exist, often I get nonsensical explanation, whether it be God, Brahman or Consciousness.

So I have to ask you - what sum total of existence are you talking about?

If you say Brahman, to me, the Brahman and "absolute reality" are oxymoron, because the Brahman is so ill-defined. Seriously how can anyone say that the Brahman is "absolute", when no one can really define it?

 

[g2perk]

"A gift from god"? And you do realize, don't you, that the whole thing comes down to the following?

....THINK ABOUT IT. If you need an explanation just ask.


​

Please explain!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

I actually do understand the concept of "absolute reality".

I just find all versions (including your brand) of philosophical or religious concepts of the "absolute" to be absurd...because the concepts often strayed from "reality", especially when one of these go on about transcendence or cosmic "consciousness", or they have the "spiritual" or "god" component.

Nothing about god or spirit is ever absolute. And it is the same this eternal consciousness.

If I ask you what is cosmic consciousness, follow by how do you know that it exist, often I get nonsensical explanation, whether it be God, Brahman or Consciousness.

So I have to ask you - what sum total of existence are you talking about?

If you say Brahman, to me, the Brahman and "absolute reality" are oxymoron, because the Brahman is so ill-defined. Seriously how can anyone say that the Brahman is "absolute", when no one can really define it?

Haha,,,,you are funny Jimmie. why would absolute reality be any different just because I practice religion and you don't....there is only one absolute reality, and it does not depend on what anyone thinks or does not think...do you understand what I am saying?

And why are you raising up all these strawman....eternal consciousness...spirit....cosmic consciousness....etc...are you trying to confuse the issue before this exchange has even established what we each understand the reality represented by the concept of 'absolute reality' to be?

The sum total of existence is just another way to convey the idea of absolute reality....I would be happy to hear, if you have another idea of what absolute reality means, your definition?

 

[Skwim]

Please explain!

Basically, Christians are thankful to god that he has given them a way to be saved from hell. However, the only reason they need to be saved from hell is because it was god's idea to send them there in the first place. He didn't have to create hell, but chose to do so. It's like thinking your father is a great guy and sing his praises because when you pleaded for him to stop beating and starving you, he did. If god had never set up Hell there would be no need to thank him for not sending you there. His good-guy status is based only on the hope he keeps you from falling into the trap he set you for. How much better if there was no trap at all. Of course the Christian will say that hell is a consequence of original sin, or man's continued sin, which is true. However, it was god's choice to exact such a harsh punishment. He didn't have to create any punishment at all if he didn't want to. Yet he did. Being omniscient he was well aware A&E would eat the apple and set the sin-salvation operation in motion. Even before he created Adam he KNEW that many of his creatures would fail his requirements for salvation and end up in hell. Yet he went ahead anyway. Personally, this kind of barbarism is on par with the WWII German concentration camps, none of which have brought people to their feet in greatful applause.

I've gone on a bit more than I planned here, but it's all part of the god's grand design for his human creations.

1. Create reasoning human creatures to populate the world
2. Set up a test involving two of them that will forever impact all those that follow
3. For failing this test there will be dire consequences: the possibility of everlasting hell. For passing this test there will be ever lasting peace on earth.
4. Watch them fail the test.
5. Eventually give humans an out, an escape clause.
6. Those that happen to hear of this escape clause AND believe it will get a bye and not face the dire consequences of hell
7. The escape clause will consist of specific rules and duties that must be followed, plus a fair amount of heart felt, praising, and worshiping of yours truly. Such people will live throughout eternity in heaven.
8. Those not aware of the escape clause or those who hear it but remain unconvinced will burn in an everlasting hell.
9. In any case, life on earth will be one continuous struggle against a host of adversities planned to promote suffering, fear, hatred, sorrow, and finally death.


.
​

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Basically, Christians are thankful to god that he has given them a way to be saved from hell. However, the only reason they need to be saved from hell is because it was god's idea to send them there in the first place. He didn't have to create hell, but chose to do so. It's like thinking your father is a great guy and sing his praises because when you pleaded for him to stop beating and starving you, he did. If god had never set up Hell there would be no need to thank him for not sending you there. His good-guy status is based only on the hope he keeps you from falling into the trap he set you for. How much better if there was no trap at all. Of course the Christian will say that hell is a consequence of original sin, or man's continued sin, which is true. However, it was god's choice to exact such a harsh punishment. He didn't have to create any punishment at all if he didn't want to. Yet he did. Being omniscient he was well aware A&E would eat the apple and set the sin-salvation operation in motion. Even before he created Adam he KNEW that many of his creatures would fail his requirements for salvation and end up in hell. Yet he went ahead anyway. Personally, this kind of barbarism is on par with the WWII German concentration camps, none of which have brought people to their feet in greatful applause.

I've gone on a bit more than I planned here, but it's all part of the god's grand design for his human creations.

1. Create reasoning human creatures to populate the world
2. Set up a test involving two of them that will forever impact all those that follow
3. For failing this test there will be dire consequences: the possibility of everlasting hell. For passing this test there will be ever lasting peace on earth.
4. Watch them fail the test.
5. Eventually give them an out, an escape clause.
6. Those that happen to hear of this escape clause AND believe it will get a bye and not face the dire consequences of hell
7. The escape clause will consist of specific rules and duties that must be followed, plus a fair amount of heart felt, praising, and worshiping of yours truly. Such people will live throughout eternity in heaven.
8. Those not aware of the escape clause or those who hear it but remain unconvinced will burn in an everlasting hell.
9. In any case, life on earth will be one continuous struggle against a host of adversities planned to promote suffering, fear, hatred, sorrow, and finally death.​

...thanks for the laugh Skwim.....the depth of your theological knowledge is quite extraordinary.... ​

 

[Sapiens]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

As a scientist I spent much more time and effort disproving things than doing anything else. That which could not be disproved at the time survived to become "science."