Why do some people

[Audie]

Hope for qualified jurors,
but don't expect it.

Once upon a time, 2 women on a jury wanted to convict
the accused because he was "scary looking" (black guy
with a prison haircut). There was no real case against him.
One juror was quite strident in steering them towards "not
guilty". That groundskeeper shall remain nameless.

Ok i wont identify you.

If you want leave your sordid past and seek new ground to
skeep, I bought a farm not long ago. Its kind of untidy.
Could use a good skeeper.

 

[Lain]

What you know or what you feel is true?

I have no idea what you mean by feel or know here, but you asked about knowledge, so I'll say "know."

 

[Lain]

Hope for qualified jurors,
but don't expect it.

Once upon a time, 2 women on a jury wanted to convict
the accused because he was "scary looking" (black guy
with a prison haircut). There was no real case against him.
One juror was quite strident in steering them towards "not
guilty". That groundskeeper shall remain nameless.

I have always wanted jury-duty just to see something like that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you think what is unseen is unknowable? Unseen and unknowable are two different things to me at least.

Sure - me, too.

I was going with @Conscious thoughts' usage. He spoke about science not being able to investigate "the unseen," so I inferred that he meant the term to mean things beyond the scope of science.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have always wanted jury-duty just to see something like that.

Serving on a jury should frighten any rational person.
Tis best to avoid cops'n courts if at all possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science offers greater clarity & objectivity than any other method.
Although this is the best non-science work about religion that I've
ever seen....

Except that it is in part not objective.
And for clarity in regards to science, that is not objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure - me, too.

I was going with @Conscious thoughts' usage. He spoke about science not being able to investigate "the unseen," so I inferred that he meant the term to mean things beyond the scope of science.

Yeah, and that depends on how you understand "the unseen" and science. E.g. right and wrong in the moral sense are in one sense "unseen" as per science, because you can't do right and wrong using science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A lot of " teachings" directly contradict things that can be seen.

If you find someone, somewhere, so dimwitted that the think " science" is applicable to the
unseen (undetectable) then Id suggest you
ignore them. As you would someone babbling
about astrology or Atlantis rising.

I agree with part of your reply
My current understanding of astrology is limited so at the moment i dont know if it is reliable or not.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Everyone's beliefs have "some substance" to them.

.. which others cannot see.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Sure - me, too.

I was going with @Conscious thoughts' usage. He spoke about science not being able to investigate "the unseen," so I inferred that he meant the term to mean things beyond the scope of science.

Yes, the spiritual realms, as far as I know. Science has no answer for it. And seem to say it can't be real? Am I understanding it correct?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

.. which others cannot see.

Including that we both have different beliefs which in both cases can't be seen. I am not that special and as far as I can tell, neither are you.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sure - me, too. He spoke about science not being able to investigate "the unseen," ..

Yeah, only theists can see Emperor's new clothes. They remain unseen to others.
@mikkel_the_dane , morality belong to society and not to religion or science.
@Conscious thoughts , science has at least some answers for the unseen, but you reject them out of hand.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, only theists can see Emperor's new clothes. They remain unseen to others.

What are you looking for if you looking for proof of God? Or other deities

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah, only theists can see Emperor's new clothes. They remain unseen to others.

And you can only see your beliefs, because I can't see them.

 

[icehorse]

Why do some people think that using science to "explain" any form of theism is a right way to understand belief in a God?

In discussion of theism science are useless since science do not "know" the unseen, so they can not verify a "result" if religion or spiritual teaching is discussed it has to be done by the teaching of each spiritual teaching. Not by use of science.

I'm very interested in cognitive science and neuroscience. The question of "belief" in general, is very interesting.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm very interested in cognitive science and neuroscience. The question of "belief" in general, is very interesting.

It would be interesting if you made a OP avout it

 

[pearl]

Another problem, the information the jury is presented with as 'true'.

A Massachusetts man walked out of jail and embraced his family for the first time as a free man in 27 years after a judge tossed his 1995 murder conviction, citing police corruption at the time.

Wrongfully convicted man freed after serving 27 years - New York Daily News (nydailynews.com)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You say that you believe this because it’s the best theory supported by science, but don’t you at least find it curious that the last 100 years of scientific theory tallies so closely with millennia old scripture from your own country? How did those ancient Vedic philosophers know that the material world, far from being compromised of seemingly separate and disjointed objects and creatures, was one huge kaleidoscope of intrinsically connected phenomena? How did they know that everything from a butterfly on earth to a storm on a distant star, was intimately connected?
And how did they know about the existence of the atom? Nuclear physics didn’t tell them this.

Not just the Indians, the Greeks also were good at that, sometimes outpacing Indians. They were sharp minds. Among the last ones of them was Buddha. These theories were the result of thought experiments, just like Einstein did. Prajapati Parameshthi said at least 3,000 years ago (in Nasadiya Sukta, it was before RigVeda was codified):
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
For example, what happens when a person dies and is cremated. What the body was composed of mixes with the environment. It is a simple thought experiment if one is not already biased.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What are you looking for if you looking for proof of God? Or other deities

Something that establishes his existence and that of validity of the prophets/sons/messengers/manifestations/mahdis that he is supposed to have sent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not just the Indians, the Greeks also were good at that, sometimes outpacing Indians. They were sharp minds. Among the last ones of them was Buddha. These theories were the result of thought experiments, just like Einstein did. Prajapati Parameshthi said at least 3,000 years ago (in Nasadiya Sukta, it was before RigVeda was codified):
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
"The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
For example, what happens when a person dies and is cremated. What the body was composed of mixes with the environment. It is a simple thought experiment if one is not already biased.

So you are special? You have no biases? Well, then you are in for a Nobel Prize for what the world really is. Stop posting here and send your finding to a relevant scientific organisation. I mean it.