Hi

[aitm]

I don't think Arik understands he concept of proof.

Plants don't need no stinkin proof.

[Arik]

That's...not how science works, to put it mildly.
This is basically a rehash of the great chain of being (a medieval idea), which is pseudoscience.



Evolution does not have levels.  Plants, insects, birds, and humans have all undergone changes to adapt to changing environments.  Every species that is alive managed that in some form or another.  Complexity =/= "evolvedness"

Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.

You may well say that also my belief is a guess but at least I got something that make sense.
Life teach us that the good things do not fall from the sky.
You surely must know that to get money we got to work hard and we have also to work hard to make our life easier.
Now you tell me how it is possible to get such an evolved consciousness unless we have first done the hard work to go from lower form of lives to what we are now?
Have you ever seen a small boy or girl that become a doctor just by attending the first year of the primary school?

What most scientist know is only related to physical changes which do not tell anything about changes in consciousness.
The day that scientists will understand how changes in consciousness affect changes in bodies then that will be a very great day for humanity.

[Arik]

Glad things worked for you.  But that is not evidence of anything other than it worked for you.  That is subjective.  It is not evidence you can use to 'prove' anything to me.  Or anybody else.  It is evidence that is proof to you--and that's it.  This is not scientific proof--it is subjective proof.  All theists and religious people from the very beginning of time have used that type of 'proof' and not any scientific proof of any kind.  Can you give me any scientific proof that your god exists or ever did?

Scientific proof?

It really depend which science you try to use Mike.

If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?

To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.

Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.

[Mike Cl]

Scientific proof?

It really depend which science you try to use Mike.

If you expect to find proofs by using physical science then forget about that.
How on earth can a physical science understand what is not physical such as God?

To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.

Love is felt individually according the effort that a person put in that relationship.
As you would be unable to provide evidence that your love for someone is real also no one that engage in spirituality would be able to show you that God exist because the relationship is strictly individual.
As I already said you can see physical evidence because the glands secrete hormones but other than that very little.

Clearly you are trying to remake 'science' into your own special belief system.  Science is not magic nor another form of belief.  It is simply growing to understand one point at a time.  One creates and states a hypotheses and then tries to prove it.  If one can prove it in such a way that another person can recreate the experiment and get the same results, then you have a theory and have added to the knowledge of the world.  One does not need to have belief in science--look at the evidence.  BTW, if one cannot prove a hypothesis, then it remains just that, a hypothesis.  That is what you are pushing--a hypothesis.  You 'tested' it within yourself, which means I cannot replicate that particular experiment.  So, your beliefs are just that, an unproven hypothesis.  And all theist beliefs are the same. 

Just as I don't have to prove that fairies or gnomes or Bugs Bunny are not real--they are clearly fictional--I don't need to prove your god does not exist.  Offer me some proof for your claim that god is real. 

Theists seem to be really put off by 'I don't know'.  Yes your fav gland does secrete a hormone.  You suggest that beyond that we know little.  We sure don't know all that we need to know about that gland; but we do know much more than we did 100 or 1000 years ago.  And we will know more in the future; and we will learn by using the scientific method, not yoga nor meditation nor simply believing something. 

So far I have not been shown any proof of your god.  Personal stories simply don't count.

[Baruch]

It is a mistake, in this culture to identify "science" as "knowledge" ... only most recent version of the scientific method can be meant.  Otherwise there is unnecessary semantic posturing.  Arik - please explain your epistemology.

[aitm]

It really depend which science you try to use Mike.


To understand God you must use a science that study what is not physical such as the consciousness and that science is the science of yoga and yoga meditation in particular.

In other words...sciency stuff you imagine when you be in meditation cause thats where god hides the sciency stuff, if'n not in your brain..he hides it in trees. Secretly cause they be a meditating too. Shhhh...don't scare the philodendron.

[the_antithesis]

Neither is your personal experience (or mine).  All personal info (as we misremember it) is invalid.  You are not a human, not alive, not male etc ... that is just you POV, which is subjective.  2+2=4 is objective ... the prophet, Pythagoras, says so.

OTOH ... when two or more drunk monkeys agree on something, that is objectionable, not objective.  Group think isn't evidence.

You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.

[Baruch]

You're making less sense than the OP. That must be a useful skill in day-to-day life.

OK.  I am probably older than he is.  So more experienced at theism, and heresy (which seems to include him also) than he is ;-)

[Cavebear]

Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time.  He a religious troll.

[Baruch]

Arik is just working you all up with nonsense arguments to waste your time.  He a religious troll.

Perhaps.  Was willing to give him a chance, but it all seems all too lovey dovey.

[Minimalist]

I don't think Arik understands the concept of proof.

"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.

[Baruch]

"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.

Correct.  Proof only applies to mathematics and whiskey, and sometimes not even math.  Evidence exists, but as rationalizing monkeys (not rational), we choose our conclusions and make specious arguments to defend those conclusions.  But yes, we can, to a degree, separate objective evidence from subjective evidence.  My contention is that both are of value, and to falsely deny that one has a subjective existence is a form of mania, of unbalance.  Just as if you were a solipsist (a person who only acknowledges subjective evidence and denies all objective evidence).

[Cavebear]

"Proof" is the wrong word.  "Evidence" is the right word and they have none of that, either.

Well, yes.  Theists tend to confuse things they are told (without evidence), with facts.  Some people are just weak-minded like that.   The rest of us have to try to help them out with that stuff.

[Hydra009]

Many scientists GUESS that that is the case but as far as total prove and total evidence zero-nil-0.
Guessing is not evidence Hydra.

Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.

[Cavebear]

Clearly, the world's scientists cannot hope to match your dizzying intellect.

Yeah, theists tend to thing that opinions from religious texts are facts.  You just can't help them get rational sometimes...