Quote:
Originally Posted by That Stoner Kid
Ok, Im gonna be more open-minded. How can you make a theory bases on something that isn't proven? Like I really don't see how this can be seen as a legitimate theory, its based on faith.
Like what is this guy trying to say, there is an equation that will calculate someones spirituality levels? come on
lol ya no shit, rhetorical question. What Im saying is that, that doesn't make sense. He is leaving a lot of things unanswerered, like he goes from losing yourself in an activity to feeling connected to a larger universe to believing in things that cannot be proven, no matter matter what, like are those the only 3 categories a person can be put into?
|
The only thing I meant to ask from openmindedness, is to let us in on the provable facts that God or what have you doesn't exist. I personally agree that there doesn't seem to be a tangable way to measure God with the five sense, without making some loose conclusions.
We can for instance measure the physiology of a highly religious person. Like when Buddhist monks raise their temperature in certain focused meditations. Or perhaps the brain scan of a person emersed in deep meditation. We can look at what
really happens in the brain during fasting, and talk about the beat of drums or chanting in regaurd to breathing and pulse of the waves created.
What we can't measure is how the person gets to the level of concentration/devotion in which these states take place. To me this is an interesting gap of unansweredness.
Is is possible that the popular science community doesn't have the consciousness to perceive a way to measure such things? And therefore is it possible that there are 'answers' that we have in this day and age that are based on the
faith that our conscious minds can contrive ALL the variables. If not we could be missing an answer to a problem only because we can't think outside of the Scientific process, which could be called the doctrine of faith that these are the
only ways to test something.
Perhaps like the 'scientist' of old ,who had many many answers for their societies, only to be proven wrong in later centuries, to ridiculous proportions, we too are creating 'certainties of explainations' which are founded in science. And might seem just as absurd in a thousand years? Which doesn't sound so different than some religions I know of.
Einstein said ,"That a problem can not be solved in the consciousness in which it was conceived". Sounds like some pretty untestable mystical words from a Father of Science.
I'm only saying what if man. I could be wrong, You could be wrong. I agree there is alot of misuse of religion, but I also think that science has brought us alot of guns and bombs that are used by the secular and religous alike. Where do ethics in science come from? Are they based on testable conclusions, human conclusions? The societal norms and mores? What are the norms and mores based on? I don't know for sure. But I think to simply detest something for lack of 'provable evidence' might not be consider all the possabilities either.
So I ask please cite examples if you can. I'd like to know what you believe as well. I totally respect you opinion. I only wished to share the depth of my thoughts and questions regaurding what we know and what we think we know and all the questions we haven't even thought of yet.
Doing good for the most amount of people is my highest aim, whatever gets us there, I am interested in hearing about it.
Please share man, please share.
In Loving Kindness,
SageTree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waves
haha.... i type lazily. i know intellectually the difference between you're, your, im just so advanced that such petty semantically concerns are beneath me.
(lol.)
hey sage, have you read this book btw?
God's Debris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Waves, I never read it, but I'll look around for it and bookmark it for my list.