Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Diest TKO wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:
Science has nothing to say about what is non-material.

Pschology? Economics? Political science?

I should have stated that better. Scientists can certainly say whatever they want about what is non-material, but they are not being rigorous when they do so. In these fields, they are moving from "hard" science to "soft" science. As a result, these fields are often criticized as not being truly scientific. Science can only study what it can measure in the physical world and then make inferences about those things it cannot measure, in the case of psychology, the human mind. The scientific study of spirituality, such as studies of the physiological effects of meditation, is even more removed from the underlying phenomenology.

Quote:

IFeelFree wrote:

You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief.

Sounds conclusive to me. There is no spiritual truth avalible.

That is the point of view of the conceptual mind. Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:
Science has nothing to say about what is non-material.

Pschology? Economics? Political science?

I should have stated that better. Scientists can certainly say whatever they want about what is non-material, but they are not being rigorous when they do so. In these fields, they are moving from "hard" science to "soft" science. As a result, these fields are often criticized as not being truly scientific. Science can only study what it can measure in the physical world and then make inferences about those things it cannot measure, in the case of psychology, the human mind. The scientific study of spirituality, such as studies of the physiological effects of meditation, is even more removed from the underlying phenomenology.

Be the science "hard" or "soft" it is still a means to understand and predict natural events. Given enough time, even our "spft" scientists develop more and more impressive models.

I'm still waiting for evidence of the unicorn.

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief.

Sounds conclusive to me. There is no spiritual truth avalible.

That is the point of view of the conceptual mind. Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

Two words: "prove it." All the poetic language in the world doesn't give your claim any validity.

If spiritual truth is only known by any other means than any other truth, it probably isn't truth at all.

"Spiritual truth is only known by those transending mind or thought?" Prove it. Prove that the truth of science is less valid than the subjective truth one would ultimately experience in a "formless dimention of conscience." Prove that if all people were to exeriance this simultaneously, they would become aware of the SAME truth.

It would seem that the opposite is far more intuitive, and likely. Don't forget to have your unicorn spayed or neutered.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Quote:

Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

Sorry mate lost on me. I have no idea what you are talking about. And I dont think you have either. Do you (and others) make this stuff up as you go along? Or does it pop into your head from the formless dimension which transcends the radiant consciousness? Idea

(see anyone can do it)

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief.

Sounds conclusive to me. There is no spiritual truth avalible.

That is the point of view of the conceptual mind. Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

Two words: "prove it." All the poetic language in the world doesn't give your claim any validity.

If spiritual truth is only known by any other means than any other truth, it probably isn't truth at all.

"Spiritual truth is only known by those transending mind or thought?" Prove it. Prove that the truth of science is less valid than the subjective truth one would ultimately experience in a "formless dimention of conscience." Prove that if all people were to exeriance this simultaneously, they would become aware of the SAME truth.

I could point to the research that has been done on meditation, for example, but I'm not sure what that "proves" except that there are some interesting physiological changes taking place during the practice. The spiritual dimension is known through subjective experience. If you want proof, take up some practice such as meditation. See for yourself if it is true.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Quote:
Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

Sorry mate lost on me. I have no idea what you are talking about. And I dont think you have either. Do you (and others) make this stuff up as you go along? Or does it pop into your head from the formless dimension which transcends the radiant consciousness? (see anyone can do it)

I used to post on this forum occasionally some time ago. I remember I became disappointed with the overall level of discourse here and I stopped posting. I thought I would give it a try once again. So far, it is pretty much as I remembered. It is surprising to me that people would participate on a spirituality & religion forum if they believe its all hooey.

0 Replies

Tust me Free, this forum is NOT the place for you!

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

Tust me Free, this forum is NOT the place for you!

TheCorrectResponse, I'm curious. Why do you say that?

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
IFeelFree wrote:

Quote:
IFeelFree wrote:

You can't test spiritual Truth and its not repeatable. Truth also has nothing to do with belief.

Sounds conclusive to me. There is no spiritual truth avalible.

That is the point of view of the conceptual mind. Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought. The core spiritual experience is pure radiant consciousness, silent awareness, still presence, or spaciousness. When individual awareness identifies with the conceptual mind, it does not recognize this formless dimension of consciousness.

Two words: "prove it." All the poetic language in the world doesn't give your claim any validity.

If spiritual truth is only known by any other means than any other truth, it probably isn't truth at all.

"Spiritual truth is only known by those transending mind or thought?" Prove it. Prove that the truth of science is less valid than the subjective truth one would ultimately experience in a "formless dimention of conscience." Prove that if all people were to exeriance this simultaneously, they would become aware of the SAME truth.

I could point to the research that has been done on meditation, for example, but I'm not sure what that "proves" except that there are some interesting physiological changes taking place during the practice. The spiritual dimension is known through subjective experience. If you want proof, take up some practice such as meditation. See for yourself if it is true.

You need to address more than 10% of my post.

T
K
O

0 Replies

You have two choices here. All science is pure evil or all religion is pure evil. Even if you choose one of those sides you have to phrase things in the way the respective clicks here want to hear it. People come here to ARGUE to no purpose or resolve just to do it. If you don't like that they will show you the way to the door.

I can kind of understand their thinking. Most have put in a lot of energy and time, some literally tens of thousands of posts, upwards of twenty plus a day for FOUR YEARS. Now you want to change the game in their house. Not gonna do it.

You want to speak of religion in the sense of metaphor of the ineffable? Anti-Religion ain't gonna allow it, they see it as formalized religion. Religious ain't gonna allow it they see it against formalized religion, theirs particularly.

Soon as I saw you use the "S" word (spirituality) I knew you were toast! You have actually been treated rather well, considering.

I come around when I'm on the clock and I'm waiting on my client, Rarely on my spare time. Plus the fact that there have been very few people in real life that could ever scare me away face-to-face so its not likely to happen one the web.

Look around on the posts, you see no religion on the religious posts, try finding some science on the science posts.

There are, of course, exceptions but I think you will find them few and far between.

Sit back and watch me get clobbered for saying this if you need more proof of what I say. Then sit back and watch me not care in the least!

To quote a line from Monty Python: RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

0 Replies

one person says that it has to be this way.

another person says that it has to be another way.

i say you're both wrong, it doesn't have to be.

so i don't agree with tcr on this one, but he may be entirely right that it's what you have to expect of this forum.

i'm not sure of that either, however. i've tried to explain any number of times that there is room for both ways of thinking, but there are enough examples of both "sides" trying to squeeze the other one out of the picture that i could be wrong about even this.

i hold onto the faith that there is room for both a scientific and religious point of view, so long as neither are exclusive. and i don't think that the place for this shared view is under the state, which is a point of sore contention to those of us that don't want a theocracy.

i also don't think that religion should demand to be called "science" when it isn't now, and hasn't been for a very, very long time. i don't think religion should ever be used as an excuse for atrocities. other than that, your jesus (muhammed, spaghetti monster) is just alright with me.

0 Replies

IFeelFree wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
Tust me Free, this forum is NOT the place for you!

TheCorrectResponse, I'm curious. Why do you say that?

Maybe because you resort to ad hominems instead of debating? When you say:

Quote:

I remember I became disappointed with the overall level of discourse here and I stopped posting. I thought I would give it a try once again. So far, it is pretty much as I remembered. It is surprising to me that people would participate on a spirituality & religion forum if they believe its all hooey.

You basically say that you don't feel obligated to dignify TKO with an answer because he's to dumb to realize that:

Quote:

Spiritual Truth is only known by transcending mind or thought.

0 Replies

i couldn't find any posts where i thought iff was being unreasonable, but i can tell he feels excluded.

this isn't a challenge to those that know him better. he may be a real PITA in places i haven't noticed yet, or have noticed, and forgot, but without that context he seems to be saying perfectly reasonable things in this thread.

0 Replies

Sure, I might have read it out of context... But in the context I read and quoted it - it was definitively an ad hominem.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

You have two choices here. All science is pure evil or all religion is pure evil.

I don't think too many folks here will agree with that.

0 Replies

Of course not it gives everyone something new to argue about. Laughing

Don't worry free, much more to come!

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
You have two choices here. All science is pure evil or all religion is pure evil.

I don't think too many folks here will agree with that.

I think everyone can agree that - pure evil = pure religion = fundamentalism Very Happy

0 Replies

Quote:

It is surprising to me that people would participate on a spirituality & religion forum if they believe its all hooey.

this is at the core of your complaint, right? to people exposed on a daily basis to trolls suggesting that you have no right to discuss religion unless you agree with it, this might seem really unreasonable. i don't think it's really unreasonable, and yet of course i disagree with it.

imagine you're someone that wants to talk about religion, but you're not completely against it. would this forum be disappointing? maybe. i don't take it as an attack, but it might be one. i like this place a lot better than beliefnet, but not for the things that iff might be looking for.

but the part where you're saying he's implying that someone is "too dumb," that doesn't look to me like what iff said, more like leftovers from a less reasonable encounter had with a fundie. i don't think they're all the same, but as i said, i don't know iff that well.

0 Replies

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

You have two choices here. All science is pure evil or all religion is pure evil.

so what about breeding ferrets?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

TheCorrectResponse wrote:
You have two choices here. All science is pure evil or all religion is pure evil.

I don't think too many folks here will agree with that.

I certainly don't.

0 Replies

OK ROS. You took me to task for calling TL,BD,and gunga cowards and liers. How come nothing to say about this:

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2892551#2892551

0 Replies

Can Science Disprove The Existence Of God?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know