For all the Athiests.........

Your premis is all based on interpretation.

Calculus exists. I can verify that without having to know about the exact mathematical mechanisims it operates on. I can get an overview of it as a whole without it blowing my mind. People can show me the end all proof of calculus without it causing life debilitating mental siezures.

So, to mirror your anology,

Cars . I don't know how all of the vehicle works. i haven't been to mechanics school. But I'm not overwhelmed with the knowledge required to 'fully' understand the car. I can still verify it exists, I can interact with it, and the 'creator' actually leaves a manuel that is stright forward and without mysterious nonsensical babbeling in it, and the manual doesn't leave me impaired with it's 'knowledge.' I don't see how straight forward non deniable proof of a god like entity would make my whole mind melt with the ramifications-saying it would, would be quite a stretch.

So am I also supposed to "loose it" when I discover that I have parents too? Too much for me to handle?

There is no real awakening. The 'awakening' you are refering to is just when your brain has reached the threshold and has thoroughly convinced oneself of it's own theory. Notice everything is based on hypothesis. All of it requires self interpretation of the event to be explained as 'god' induced but that none of those 'observations' are self evident to the outside observer?

Why would I care to talk to people about this subject if I am so convinced of it all being wishful thinking? Well I still have to live with these people.
Morbid Curiousity, And when someone believes in any superstition or make believe, I still want to know why they believe what they do. Mostly it's entertaining too. I'm not above that.

No I'm not feeling the 'spirit'. So I don't think I'm on the road to conversion.

Choice is the operative word in this whole discussion and I'm glad you brought it up. You choose to automaticaly label something as having godly manifestation whether or not you or anyone else could ever proof it. It's like finding anectdotal evidence for peter pan with every ocurrance of my life. Obviously since I can't demonstrate peter pans existance other people will not see it the way I do. You too make that same decision.

I'm walking through the woods. I think man I havent seen any flowers growing today.
I then walk around then bend the next moment and find a small patch of flowers.

I think to myself thank peter pan for he granted me my desire. These flowers were ment just for me. You say all that but interject god for peter pan. Sounds crazy to the outside observer right?

Starting source for the flood theory:

en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)#Local_flood_theory

Once you see all the globally recorded materials of ancient past, you could branch out and google for yourself, discerning between credible and flakey sources. Same goes for the archeaologists I mentioned.

www.mercurynews.com...

Is another breaking scientific news story that is already discrediting some widely held beliefs and views in this field, ....just to suppot the whole theory that foundations of science are anything but anchored.

Everything I stated in my last post, can be easily googled and supported using credible sources. My apologies for not automatically listing them, since I presummed that we were discussing these subjects on a merited basis between those of us who have been back and forth for a while now.

...............
Shauny,
I don't necessarily believe that you would go to Hell for not believing. I think it would be Hell in itself for you to realize after physical death that what Christians were saying all along was right, and then having to deal with facing God. Whether you believe or not, you still partake in the divine plan and inter-connectedness of it all. When you Love your wife, kids, family, friends, help others, give to the needy, etc.....with these acts you are already partaking in God's mode without even knowing it.

I know it's difficult to believe at first if at all. Part of it is because of your freewill to choose to view everything in this way. I just cannot understand how we simply need to look around us at the complexity of everything and not come to a conclusion of a divine creative maker behind it "all." Even scientists have to have faith in the unknown and unseen in order construct their theories and ideas many times.

Like Holidaystar said to the extent that, if you don't seek God out, then you wont find him. Even if a day was to come where science certifies the existence of God, you would still have to take the steps to seek him out.

So at the end, you have millions, if not more, of people who have genuinely seeked out God, and gotten a reply in the most fasciniting way to such an extent that they realized the utter limitations of any known human language to even describe such an event.

But because you havent and choose not to seek out God, he's not there? The majority in the scientific community has also not "seeked" out God.

The big issue here when it comes to even discussing God, is that anything that you use to describe God, like love for example, limits God to the extent of what your individual interpretation and level of understanding sees "love" to be in the first place. So any label you want to put on him, automatically limits him to the interpretation of that label. But when he is experieinced by yourself, it is then that you are transformed and taken to a place of operation beyond regular petty faculties.

Even if we're just simply activating a new section of the brain that can decipher and take in hidden and unseen information, then shouldn't everyone be operating with this section on, especially scientists??????

If anything is implied, is that what mystics have been saying for thousands of years in regards to whats at play, science is only now slowly catching up and re-establishing with proof, what mystics have been speaking about through divine revelation.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by dominicus]

Originally posted by dominicus
www.mercurynews.com...

Is another breaking scientific news story that is already discrediting some widely held beliefs and views in this field, ....just to suppot the whole theory that foundations of science are anything but anchored.

Scientists thought that the solar system was created from slowly inward condensing cloud (solar nebula). However, as the meteorite formed on the outter edges, they believe that materials weren't just moving inward, but outward too. It hardly 'rocks' the foundations of science. I've said before that scientific ideas are always changing. The fact that organic matter was found in this space dust, suggests that meteorites could have been the key to creating the spark of life. Earth has always been bombarded with meteorites, it's a very plausable way for simple life to find it's way to Earth. And as Earth became a more hospitable environment, life flourished.

If anything this story agrees with much of what science has to say about the origins of life. It's a very good read, thankyou.

[edit on 15-12-2006 by shaunybaby]

hahaha,
your very welcome. Yes, ever changing science. I adore science just as much as the next man, but the point with that article was the "ever-changingness" of science, i.e. no solid foundations. Anyday some new discovery can come out and make everything null and void, and for that make all of the scientific community and those that follow there every step look like a bunch of idiots.

Still, what formed the meteorites, and what formed whatever formed the meteorites, to 1,000th power??? Until that day that is closing upon us when science justifies the spiritual realm, until then all science is a bunch of repeating cycles within cycles, although every now and then we get significant findings. Not only that, but who's to say that the scientific community hasn't already discovered the spiritual and is keeping this information away from the public as we so often see and hear in history, and in releasing this info, wouldn't they all make themselves look like fools since the majority if scientists are athiests? I believe so.

All of us are only processing 4,000 out of 4 million if not more pieces of information thats around us all the time. Our limited being and capabilities won't allow us to fathom the spiritual and yet the spiritual is all around us. So as long as scientists are credited/merited, then you believe them. But there are no professional degrees for those who are genuinely spiritual enlightened, and yet they traverse these realms all day every day, and you couldn't tell them apart from the next person.

Originally posted by dominicus
I adore science just as much as the next man, but the point with that article was the "ever-changingness" of science, i.e. no solid foundations. Anyday some new discovery can come out and make everything null and void, and for that make all of the scientific community and those that follow there every step look like a bunch of idiots.

How exactly has that article made science, and the people that follow it look like a bunch of idiots? I take it you can create a probe like device, send it in to space, collect material that's trailing from a meteorite, and get the probe to then land back on earth, and to you people that are able to do that are idiots?

All of us are only processing 4,000 out of 4 million if not more pieces of information thats around us all the time. Our limited being and capabilities won't allow us to fathom the spiritual and yet the spiritual is all around us. So as long as scientists are credited/merited, then you believe them. But there are no professional degrees for those who are genuinely spiritual enlightened, and yet they traverse these realms all day every day, and you couldn't tell them apart from the next person.

So you're angry that the spiritual world doesn't get enough attention?

Science enabled us to go in to space, collect this material trailing from the meteorite, bring it back to earth and study it.

Matter of fact, you cannot get a ghost and study it in a lab. I'm not exactly sure how you expect science to 'prove' your spiritual world, but it won't happen, because it can't happen.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by shaunybaby]

Originally posted by dominicus
All of us are only processing 4,000 out of 4 million if not more pieces of information thats around us all the time.

I hope this isn't based on the 10% the brain rubbish...

Dominicus, finding that at the intial formation of the solar system that the elements, instead of just moving inwards, actually moved inwards and outwards is no great shaking of foundations or changing of knowledge. We had a new source of knowledge that produced new information, that evidence is brought in to previous ideas. Any science at the borders of ignorance will produce new information, that is what science does.

Just science doing what it does best, ADDING to previous knowledge by producing evidence. If we ignored the actual evidence because we had a static world-view or used incredulity to claim evidence for the supernatural, then we would be idiots.

I'm not saying that their idiots in the way that they can gather dust using probes successfully. What I'm saying is that a successful scientist always assumes that anything is possible for theories and ideas to work. In the assumption that anything is possible, you cannot firmly hold onto any existing scientifical truth to be absolute. In the assumption that anything is possible, their can be a soul, a God, and an after-life.

What I'm saying is that mystics and the spiritually enlightened have proclaimed theories about the size and origins of the universe and sciences revolving around these matters for thousands of years knowing them to be true through their enlightening experiences, which sceince is only now catching up to and proclaiming to be true.

So while you have scientists operating probes to collect dust and bring them back to pronounce new findings, you have on the other hand spirtually enlightened individuals that are mentally operating (not physically) outside the realm of time, logic, and reason that are professing scientific truths thant hey never knew, from within.

That's why science should be operationg closely with thiesm and the enlightened, because through this way of working, we can make leaps and bounds like never before in history.

I'm not angry that the spiritul doesn't get enough attention, I'm just confounded on how the scientific community that is supposed to be living by "anything is possible" to formulate new ideas, completely dismisses the spiritual, which is an utter paradox in itself.

Perhaps you cannot get a ghost in a lab, but you can surely be set-up with all the proper instruments in a room with a dying man, capturing the brief moments after physical death to find proof of a soul, and since "anything is possible" is a scientific theory to formulate other theories, how can this not happen? The only way it can't happen is if you hold yourself to limited beliefs and doubt legitamate possibilities.

I'm never saying for anybody to doubt evidence. I'm simply saying that lots of evidence contradicts other evidents and there is also evidence that is yet to be discovered.

Originally posted by dominicus
In the assumption that anything is possible, their can be a soul, a God, and an after-life.

If anything's possible, I guess we should be open to there being a Matrix type scenario. Maybe even that scientologists are actually right about 'how' everything started, I guess that makes us re-incarnated dead alien spirits. I'm not going to believe in that, anymore than I believe in a soul, God or an after-life.

Originally posted by dominicus
What I'm saying is that mystics and the spiritually enlightened have proclaimed theories about the size and origins of the universe and sciences revolving around these matters for thousands of years knowing them to be true through their enlightening experiences, which sceince is only now catching up to and proclaiming to be true.

Could do with some examples..

Originally posted by dominicus
That's why science should be operationg closely with thiesm and the enlightened, because through this way of working, we can make leaps and bounds like never before in history.

So it would be productive for science to work with, for example, mediums? Rather than cures for cancer and finding out about our universe, dominicus seems to think it would be more productive to work on mediums and dead people just before they die.

Originally posted by dominicus
I'm not angry that the spiritul doesn't get enough attention, I'm just confounded on how the scientific community that is supposed to be living by "anything is possible" to formulate new ideas, completely dismisses the spiritual, which is an utter paradox in itself.

The spiritual very much ties in with religion, and religion is not science.

Originally posted by dominicus
Perhaps you cannot get a ghost in a lab, but you can surely be set-up with all the proper instruments in a room with a dying man, capturing the brief moments after physical death to find proof of a soul

And what instruments are these? Maybe the same ones scientologists use when they're trying to find dead alien spirits in your house?

www.xenos.org...

www.sciencenews.org...

utopia.utexas.edu...

Along with some of those xamples, you have the founding fathers of philosophy, science, astrology, chemistry, and damn near every field's founding father's where spiritually/mystically experienced:

Plato, Isaac Newton, Robert Fludd, LAo Zi, Kabir, Louis Pasteur, Galileo Galilei, Antoine Laurent Lavoisier, Michael Faraday, John Dalton, Planck, Bacon, Eckhart,

The whole of chemistry evolved from alchemy, of which in the begiining centuries of alchemy, the majority of the alchemists where mystics and professed mystical experieinces, which they claim helped their work and discoveries. (Google "history of alchemy and chemistry for this one.")

Einstien famous quote; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

All our modern day fields, had their origins solidified/discovered/modernized...primarily by individuals who claimed mystical experiences and were thiests to a degree!!!!!!!! How can you ignore this and ignore Einstien's quote???

Einstein was not religious in the way theists like to paint him...

"I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason."

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

As for the rest, the majority were religious in those days, it was the norm. I doubt any of their scientific theories and findings were caused by religious revelation. Just plain old objective evidence.



[edit on 17-12-2006 by melatonin]

O.k. so you pulled one person out of my last post and that was EinStein. So let's subtract him for the sake of the argument, and you have the rest of those founding fathers of all modern day fields, which have all claimed spiritual/mystical experiences that lead them, or helped lead them to their discoveries and theories. The primary example of this is the early alchemists, which would later go on to to evolve into chemistry.

Most of the founding fathers of Alchemy/Chemistry were thiests and stressed the importance of the mystical experieince, which would effect the observation and outcome of any experiment. This holds true today, that depending on the observer, atoms and molecules act differently according to who's observing them.

Same goes with water, which can be programmed to specific frequencies. The leader in this field is Dr. Masaru Emoto, who scientifically shows that your thoughts and emotions effect water molecules as does specific kinds of music. The effects are good, bad, indifferent, but the importance is in the effect itself based on the observer/thinker/emoter.

www.life-enthusiast.com...

www.whatthebleep.com...

(Google: body made of % water?)
When a child is born, they are made up roughly of around 70-78% water and that percentage drops to about 55-60% as we grow older. Being that the majority of ourselves is made of water, every single thought and emotion effects your whole being in a certain way. I'm saying that if you choose to not believe and never genuinely seek God out with all your heart, you are constantly programming yourself to be closed off from knowing such possibilities of spiritual enlightenment, the Love of God, and the Spiritual realms. I'll be a universalist for just this statement and go as far as to say that just about every major world religion claims that after a decent amount of time of non-believe and refusing to give the genuine search for God a try, the person hardens their heart/their being to the point of no return into the believe in God.

If this statement is true, Dr. Emoto certainly gives this theory substantial merit. In this case, wouldn't it be a shame if you go your whole lives without being trully alive? (which is what I call spiritual enlightenment)
.........
Again, I'll bring back and conclude with Einstein's statement that;

"I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason."

This is exactly what I've been saying all along, and his statement shows proof of a limited nature!!!!!! The foundations of reality are beyond rational nature, and those that are spiritually enlightened operating on transcendence have much better insight into understanding this. Rational nature is very limited and even in quantumm physics, the deeper you go, the more grey areas of rationality you hit.

...."insofar as it is accessible to human reason." Another limiting factor is the faculty of reason. Same thing goes for reason in quantumm physics and many grey areas of any field. Reason becomes obscure and frail to hold onto.

The last difficulty and hurdle is that anything experienced in spiritual enlightenment (since it is something beyond reason, logic, and rational), there are virtually no words that I can use to describe satisfactorily how and what God is and the other things experienced "there" that your reason, logic, and rational would comprehend.

But if I discuss these things to the best of my ability to another person that has experienced this, they understand completely. So I argue that mystical experiences do influence, lead to, and help manifest respected findings in all modern day fields. I also argue if there is ever a time where the majority of the scientific world is thiestic and has experienced mystical things, that is when we will make leaps and bounds in all fields like never before. A new golden age would spring forth like those we often read about historically, which suprisingly were also theistic.

The difference between a Christian mystic and Einstein is that he thought of and formulted ideas about the whole, while the mystic experiences these things first hand, which there are virtually no words to describe this.

And so.......Einstein was looking for an trying to formulte a unifying theory, but he had no way to descrbe this because this is something that is so simple to show mathematically, and yet is beyond words, rational. reason, and logic!!!!!! It's a modern day paradox. HE was THERE in transcendence, albeit perhaps they were minute glimpses. Still, these are the faculties he was encroaching and was at a loss for academically acceptable words to produce these things.

Originally posted by dominicus
O.k. so you pulled one person out of my last post and that was EinStein.

You seemed to make him a particularly important part of your statement.

Most of the founding fathers of Alchemy/Chemistry were thiests and stressed the importance of the mystical experieince, which would effect the observation and outcome of any experiment. This holds true today, that depending on the observer, atoms and molecules act differently according to who's observing them.

I doubt any of the chemistry experiments depended on the thoughts of the observer. Otherwise other people could not replicate without the same thoughts.

Same goes with water, which can be programmed to specific frequencies. The leader in this field is Dr. Masaru Emoto, who scientifically shows that your thoughts and emotions effect water molecules as does specific kinds of music. The effects are good, bad, indifferent, but the importance is in the effect itself based on the observer/thinker/emoter.

At first glance, Emoto's work looks like pure pseudoscience. It follows the normal approach of pseudoscience, poor controls, no published peer review, extraordinary claims, publishing outside of normal scientific channels. It seems he gained his degree from a paper-mill university in India (payed for with no study at all).

As noted above, replication is essential. If another group of researchers can replicate under experimental condtions, then there may be something to it. At this point, it is just the claim of one man with a few pictures and has no scientific validity.

"I have found no better expression than 'religious' for confidence in the rational nature of reality, insofar as it is accessible to human reason."

This is exactly what I've been saying all along, and his statement shows proof of a limited nature!!!!!! The foundations of reality are beyond rational nature, and those that are spiritually enlightened operating on transcendence have much better insight into understanding this. Rational nature is very limited and even in quantumm physics, the deeper you go, the more grey areas of rationality you hit.

...."insofar as it is accessible to human reason." Another limiting factor is the faculty of reason. Same thing goes for reason in quantumm physics and many grey areas of any field. Reason becomes obscure and frail to hold onto.

Yes, there are many things we don't understand and are inaccessible to human rationality. With time we may be able to apply human rationality to them. And as far as QM goes, yes, it is quite paradoxical. But only science will uncover how it works, not divination.

I don't think Einstein's quote is 'proof' of the limited nature of rational thought, it is the opinion of a highly respected scientist, I doubt he was giving support to the idea that the foundations of reality can only be assessed by spiritual means. We tend to use philosophy.

ABE:

So I argue that mystical experiences do influence, lead to, and help manifest respected findings in all modern day fields. I also argue if there is ever a time where the majority of the scientific world is thiestic and has experienced mystical things, that is when we will make leaps and bounds in all fields like never before. A new golden age would spring forth like those we often read about historically, which suprisingly were also theistic.

I doubt it. It would only hinder advancement, we have a golden age already, it started with the formation of the scientific method and the age of reason. If we start to accept research like Emoto's without question, science would be worthless. You let the data speak for itself, not consult spiritual realms.


[edit on 18-12-2006 by melatonin]

Plato - 427 - 347 BC
Isaac Newton - 1642 - 1727 AD
Robert Fludd - 1574 - 1637 AD
Lao Zi - 4th Century BC
Kabir - 1398 - ?

I think you know where I'm going..

These people lived during a time, where spirituality was used as an explanation. Heck in the 18th or 19th century, it was common practice to drill holes in a person's head, if they had a headache. Something about allowing the demons to escape.

So it's hard to take spirituality and mystical experiences from those times seriously, let alone taking them seriously now.

Spirituality is a fad, it's like a copy cat effect. Remember when the crop circles started appearing? First there was one.. and all of a sudden there were hundreds. Then someone popularises alien abduction, and then all of a sudden everyone starts getting abducted and seeing UFOs.

It's quite hard to take any of it seriously.

dom, you shouldn't have brought up newton...
part of his scientific view was a deep belief and faith in the promise of alchemy

he actually thought it was possible to turn lead into gold

Can you tell me why it's not possible to turn lead into Gold? In my opinion, it is a scientifically theoretic possibilty. Now let's say it has already been done in the past....do you really think that something like this would be broadcast to the world???? The whole modern day global economy is supported by gold. This is more of a conspiracy theory than anything, as there were a number of alchemists in the past, that professed to being able to do just that, and were prominant and well respected figures.

Look at the U.S. medical structure, the commercialization of pill taking, the income of doctor's, and so on....... We have all these natural cures (like the linseed oil for breast-cancer cure conspiracy) that are practically covered up in this country. We're supposed to be progressing with findings and medicine, and yet we have more people with medical problems of various kinds today, than ever before, and it's not as bad in Europe and else-where (besides AIDS, but that's a plague....different argument)

The biggest clue that this may be successful experiment, is that of producing a substance that is there, and yet no instrument can measure it, called "Ormus" (please Google). "Ormus" is considered the "white stone" in alchemy and was a precursor to turning lead into Gold, and scientists are dumbfounded by this substance. This is something that has been manufactured since Newton's days and possibly even hundred's if not thousands of years earlier.
.................
Shauny,
None of those names I mentioned, personally drilled holes in anyone's head. You are generalizing. What I'm trying to get at, is that you won't find any genuine mystic anywhere in history that made huge blunders in the academic field, especially ones that would outshine their findings.

If spirituality is a fad, it certainly isn't going anywhere, as we can all see....you guys are in the minority, as am I in a whole other way. Still,
how do you scientifically explain people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible...that are having dreams and visions of such realities...so much so that they ask around and find that there really is such a thing as a Bible and Jesus. This is happening around the world and you can "google" this phenomenon reading about it through creible sources. One such case in our country is of the child prodigy, Arkiane www.artakiane.com... who grew up with athiestic parents and from the very first logically concsious words she could speak, started talking about God and seeing and knowing God, without any outside influences. Same goes for a woman in India named Bilquis Sheikh, who experienced similar things and pened books about the ordeal.

It's quite hard to take any of your statements seriously being that you never genuinely searched for God, and so because of this, you are presumming and specualting that the spiritual is not real.....even though you have all these phenomenons around you that say other-wise (as I have been pointing to in all these posts) If you had genuinely took up the task to sarch for God and found nothing, then your statements about this matter can be taken seriously, but then again, you wouldn't return from your search empty handed...if indeed genuine.
....................
Melatonin,
As far as doubting that the observer effects the experiment observed, other wise, people could not replicate without the same thoughts.

Well, if you keep getting the same variable effects based on the observer, not being able to replicate without the same thoughts proves the point of the observer effecting the experiment in an original manner. This is the exact data you would be looking for. To replicate not being able to replicate.

en.wikipedia.org...

As far as Emoto, let's put him on hold.... I have a few links I have to dig up where other's(more reputable and distinguished) have replicated his experiments.

I'm not saying that Einstein's quote is 'proof' of the limited nature of rational thought. I'm simply showing you that one of the most historically respected members of the scientific community was saying something that mirrors what all mystics have been saying for thousands of years. The natural man is operating in limited fashion. I think it was you yourself that said, that if you were God, you would have made man "better." Well, the spiritually enlightened man operates in an unlimited fashion, using the old limited faculties to try to put everything unlimited into play, and that's not easy to do, but is still the best way to operate.

For the sake of this statement, let's say the Spiritual does exist and is real, but just hasn't been scientifically proven yet. Since science is evolving at such an impeccable rate, you would be able to place bets in exactly what frame of time the necessary proof would be found.

Either way, you can't say God(and everything else spiritual) does not exist because of your lacking of the genuine search for God. To make that statement true, at least in my humblest opnion, you would have had to complete such a search.



[edit on 19-12-2006 by dominicus]

Originally posted by dominicus
None of those names I mentioned, personally drilled holes in anyone's head. You are generalizing.

I didn't say they did.

Originally posted by dominicus
What I'm trying to get at, is that you won't find any genuine mystic anywhere in history that made huge blunders in the academic field, especially ones that would outshine their findings.

Everyone makes mistakes. Are they Gods? No. Then they obviously make blunders, academic or otherwise.

Originally posted by dominicus
Still, how do you scientifically explain people who have never heard of Jesus or the Bible...that are having dreams and visions of such realities...so much so that they ask around and find that there really is such a thing as a Bible and Jesus.

This is such a poor attempt to prove something from nothing. The link you gave mentions nowhere about Jesus or The Bible. It's a non-specific deity.

Originally posted by dominicus
One such case in our country is of the child prodigy, Arkiane www.artakiane.com... who grew up with athiestic parents and from the very first logically concsious words she could speak, started talking about God and seeing and knowing God, without any outside influences.

She went to school. That's an outside influence.

Originally posted by dominicus
It's quite hard to take any of your statements seriously being that you never genuinely searched for God, and so because of this, you are presumming and specualting that the spiritual is not real.

So that little girl apparently God comes to her, yet when it comes down to myself and the rest of us ATSers we have to 'search' for God? I don't presume or speculate that the spiritual is not real, I've just never seen any evidence good enough to persuade me otherwise.

Originally posted by dominicus
even though you have all these phenomenons around you that say other-wise (as I have been pointing to in all these posts) If you had genuinely took up the task to sarch for God and found nothing, then your statements about this matter can be taken seriously, but then again, you wouldn't return from your search empty handed...if indeed genuine.

I was at church for quite sometime, at school saying prayers, singing hyms, with a very much open mind, I never at anytime thought there was anything more there. I'd say that's a genuine search. I didn't find anything.

Originally posted by dominicus
Melatonin,
As far as doubting that the observer effects the experiment observed, other wise, people could not replicate without the same thoughts.

Well, if you keep getting the same variable effects based on the observer, not being able to replicate without the same thoughts proves the point of the observer effecting the experiment in an original manner. This is the exact data you would be looking for. To replicate not being able to replicate.

en.wikipedia.org...

Firstly, that experiment isn't chemistry. Secondly, there is a degree of determincy in these experiments, that is, QM can predict where a series of particles will arrive but the sequence is unpredictable. Thirdly, the experiment is reproducible.

Wave-particle duality is well-established and predicted by QM.

I'm not saying that Einstein's quote is 'proof' of the limited nature of rational thought. I'm simply showing you that one of the most historically respected members of the scientific community was saying something that mirrors what all mystics have been saying for thousands of years. The natural man is operating in limited fashion. I think it was you yourself that said, that if you were God, you would have made man "better." Well, the spiritually enlightened man operates in an unlimited fashion, using the old limited faculties to try to put everything unlimited into play, and that's not easy to do, but is still the best way to operate.

But if we weigh up the contributions from rational scientific approaches and mystical divination we find that there is just a slight asymmetry in their capabilities.

That is, mysticism has given us nothing of use in the real-world. Not a thing, zilch, nada. Just subjective feelings and guesswork.

For the sake of this statement, let's say the Spiritual does exist and is real, but just hasn't been scientifically proven yet. Since science is evolving at such an impeccable rate, you would be able to place bets in exactly what frame of time the necessary proof would be found.

Either way, you can't say God(and everything else spiritual) does not exist because of your lacking of the genuine search for God. To make that statement true, at least in my humblest opnion, you would have had to complete such a search.

Well, yeah, we can't prove a negative. We can't completely disprove 110% the existence of fairies, ethereal leprechauns, invisible celestial teapots, golden unicorns etc. But generally we find their existence of no consequence to the real-world.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Well, yeah, we can't prove a negative. We can't completely disprove 110% the existence of fairies, ethereal leprechauns, invisible celestial teapots, golden unicorns etc. But generally we find their existence of no consequence to the real-world.

nice job there, very dawkinian
but you left out the Flying Spaghetti Monster

people always bring up the problem of observation in science
it is impossible to predict with aboslute certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow
WHY?
because it would require an infinite number of observations

so we just go with the best we have
we go with what the evidence that we can gather shows us

and you are right mel, we have gotten absolutely nothing of value from the mystics

Shauny,
That Arkiane girl started discussing God at the age of 3-4. before pre-school or gindergarten. Bilquis Sheikh over in Indian, never heard of Jesus or the Bible in a communal society where christian penetration is zero!!!!! Maybe it's not that God chooses to speak to the little girl, but that she keeps herself open enough to have an open communication channel. This is what happens when you do the self mastery and asceticism work that is professed in the Bible. You open anew or re-open the communication channel between you and God.

You going to church, singing hymns, and praying is what the majority do. You, like I, saw most of those around you doing these things and so we copied them or perhaps even may have had an ounce of sincereity in the whole bit. But what I am referring to is seeking out God with everything you got, which takes some people days, months, years, or sometimes decades before they break through. It all depends on your sincerity/genuineness/and drive.

All these things you did in high school, can you tell me how many of those people are still genuinely singing hymns, praying, and going to church today? If you asked any of them if they had any serious life changing divine experiences, would any of them claim so?

I'm arguing that the Christian Mystic way is the closest thing to true Christianity you can get because the meter of you following the Bible accordingly and getting further on the quest to unification with God, are constant and ongoing direct divine experiences. It's the majority of Christianity that is messed up and is why most of you cringe at the word "Christian." If the majority were Christian mystics, you would be able to have balanced debates/discussions with such, and can ask for anything from such and you would be given without hesitation.

The ritualistic things you did, usually aren't the things that lead to divine experiences for the most part. It takes some path treading to get "there," and I believe in you and know that you can get "there." Free will can be a blessing and curse!!!!
..........
Mel,
Can you prove that mysticism has given us nothing of use in the real world? Didn't I just point out in my last post that the founding founders of most modern day academic fields professed mystical experiences, which would have had a direct or co-existing relationship between the seeker and the findings???? Of course non-mystics also have great break-throughs, but how are we to know that most great break-throughs haven't been found on verges of mysticism????

Einstein himself professed many times that the secret in his findings was being able to have a childlike view of things, or a kind of playful innocent and imaginitive observation. All the mystics including Christ himself spoke of the importance of such a view. The connection is obvious, plain, and simple!!!!!

Einstein quote; “The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives.”

Subjective feelngs and guesswork are always the precursor building blocks to all findings.

We can't prove a negative. But in this case, millions of people have taken up the genuine search for God and have returned satisfied with answers subjectively, and objectively when those around them see a complete 360 in personality and lifestyle.

You usually want the facts to fit the preconceptions. When they don't fit, it is easier to ignore the facts than to change the preconceptions.
..............
Madness,
read response to Mel. It's all connected. Every moment of every second is an infinite number of observations. When you can realize this and experience this, I would travel thousands of miles to visit you, humbling myself before you with an offerring of washing your feet !!!!!


[edit on 20-12-2006 by dominicus]

Originally posted by dominicus
That Arkiane girl started discussing God at the age of 3-4. before pre-school or gindergarten.

She still has to have heard that word before, or read it somewhere. Maybe she read about God in some context, and had some vivid dreams, and decided to link the two. She's an artist, I'm sure many of her dreams and imaginations are vivid.

Originally posted by dominicus
Bilquis Sheikh over in Indian, never heard of Jesus or the Bible in a communal society where christian penetration is zero!!!!! Maybe it's not that God chooses to speak to the little girl, but that she keeps herself open enough to have an open communication channel.

So what you're telling me is that The Bible is the way to the one true God. Hence, pretty much saying that every other religion is a load of rubbish.

Originally posted by dominicus
You going to church, singing hymns, and praying is what the majority do. You, like I, saw most of those around you doing these things and so we copied them or perhaps even may have had an ounce of sincereity in the whole bit.

Then what's the point in going to church, singing hyms, and praying? Surely all of that should get you closer to God? Yet, you're telling me the complete oposite.

Originally posted by dominicus
But what I am referring to is seeking out God with everything you got, which takes some people days, months, years, or sometimes decades before they break through. It all depends on your sincerity/genuineness/and drive.

God used to come out of nowhere and start talking to people (in the Biblical days). Now we've got to search for decades to find him? Slightly inconsistant don't you think?

Originally posted by dominicus
All these things you did in high school, can you tell me how many of those people are still genuinely singing hymns, praying, and going to church today?

This was primary school. So from the age of 4 to 10, I would say the Lord's Prayer daily, a prayer before lunch, and a prayer at the end of the day, thanking the Lord for a wonderful day and thanking the Lord for food. Hyms I sung with enthusiasm, I love singing. However, at no point did I ever feel anything, like there was something more there, there was just nothing.

Originally posted by dominicus
read response to Mel. It's all connected. Every moment of every second is an infinite number of observations. When you can realize this and experience this, I would travel thousands of miles to visit you, humbling myself before you with an offerring of washing your feet !!!!!

If I wash my feet will I be able to find God? Maybe he doesn't like my stinky feet..