It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is science a reliable source for truth?

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 08:50 AM
a reply to: andy06shake

If there is any rhyme or reason to the existence it has to simply be experience, nothing else makes sense.

Ashakic records or the like perchance?

Minds like Tom Campbell prefer to call it the Quantum field of information, all information past, present, and future exist in the field. EVERYTHING! it explains pre-cognition, remote viewing, inspiration ..

There certainly may be a form of genetic memory at play, most animals have those to some degree.

Rupert Sheldrake would describe it as Morphic Resonance, hylozoics explains it as a group soul.

posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: kennyb72

Put it this way, ile go with some form of shared group consciousness, before any kind of Biblical interpretations.

Further study is required in just about every area where consciousness is concerned.

posted on Feb, 12 2019 @ 09:55 AM
Science is a reliable source for truth, but only as we know things right now.

What they attempt to force on you as truth now will change in a few years as new advancements are made. Then they'll try to force that on you as the truth. Then ridicule you if you question it. Rinse and repeat.

posted on Feb, 13 2019 @ 01:37 PM
a reply to: andy06shake

Have you never 'felt' another person before? You have never sensed strong feelings of desire or hate that have been directed at you from another person?

How about pets? Have you possibly read some of Sheldrake's presentations on simple experiments done in a scientific method? Experiments that pets knew when their owners were coming home?

So just because you believe we are the sum of our parts and you have possibly never felt anything past physical contact, it is fact?

Have you ever wondered that your mental state possibly prohibits experiencing those sensations?

Through my own personal experiences, I would bet anything I have including my life, that there is something past the physical in this reality.

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 10:25 PM
a reply to: Raggedyman

That’s silly Jesus taught love Constantine taught war You are very confused or naive like a child

The only one confused here is you. You really should look into the early Christian area; its there in B & W

You are very confused or naive like a child

well you said this earlier

a tool, science is a tool, like a hammer, a gun,

A mouth is like a tool, use it with care, it embarrasses you time & time again when you put your foot in it.

You are no different to those who followed Constantine, you know no better.

Again you miss the point, without Constantine there would be no apostolic creed or church that survived the ages.
You show the same argumentative stance as in your evolution posts.

Been spending too much time in a cult lately?

posted on Feb, 15 2019 @ 10:53 PM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Have you a crystal ball.
Constantine was one man in one country in one church, there were other denominations globally not just the Catholic.
You are being European centric and that's just naive

The apostolic creed, and I am non credal Christian so it's irrelevant to me anyway (fail) was not a Catholic only thing so there is that as well

Remember that mouth- embarass thing, tool

Seems you know as much about church history as you do evolution

new topics

top topics
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in