Unification theory of Science & Spirit?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


No I am not, nor is an attack on you. I respect science, but just because science doesn't fully acknowledge something doesn't mean I refuse to accept it. There is a difference.




posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rosinitiate
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


No I am not, nor is an attack on you. I respect science, but just because science doesn't fully acknowledge something doesn't mean I refuse to accept it. There is a difference.
I think it's fine to have beliefs not based in science. I believe it's better to treat our fellow humans with love than hate, but I have no scientific basis for that belief, and I admit it.

However I think it's important to recognize non-scientific beliefs as such, and importantly, not misrepresent them as having some kind of basis in science, if in fact they do not. Unfortunately some woomasters like those mentioned in this thread try to deceive us in such a fashion by inferring that non-scientific concepts are somehow scientific by hijacking scientific jargon that has no scientific basis for the ideas being suggested.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by abovetheinfluencehippy01
Like my facebook page. It is called Stay above the influence (meditation picture). I help with your chakra opening/meditation/3rd eye(spiritual) related problems.

Tip:Making yourself pass out is a great stress reliever.


Huh?!?!



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Science is a method and spirit is an unproved loosely defined concept so it would be impossible to unify them. You would have to prove there is a spirit before you could attempt to unify them.


I'm just curious.

What physical manifestation would be deemed acceptable to academia as proof?


It would have to be measurable for a start.


So, you're saying that until Science comes up with a means to actually measure it then they will deny it's existence?



For example.

The Human Aura was and still is considered by many as fictitious or paranormal



Maybe it just took science a bit longer to come up with the means to capture it on film?
edit on 23-6-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Why assume it exists to begin with? I have no reason to believe in 'spirits'. I can't prove they don't exist as you can't prove a negative, but I don't see a compelling reason to believe in them without objective evidence, which is lacking.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 


This guy is ad spamming all over ATS for his fb page.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
The Human Aura was and still is considered by many as fictitious or paranormal
Maybe it just took science a bit longer to come up with the means to capture it on film?
So, this picture from your source means coins have an "aura"?



Kirlian photograph of two coins



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Kirlian photography reveals a picture of a corona discharge, but I have no reason to think it is showing an "aura".



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, this picture from your source means coins have an "aura"?



Would it be a problem for you if they do?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So, this picture from your source means coins have an "aura"?


Would it be a problem for you if they do?
If it's a "human aura" coming from a coin, that would be kind of creepy. I thought that was just an image of that guy's head on the coin. I didn't think he was really in there.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Would you have a problem finding out conductive objects have Kirlian "auras" and non-conductive objects do not, because it's just showing you a corona discharge from a conducting surface?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


If science has revealed anything it's that we all are made of the same substances {Carl Sagan said *Star stuff) at the smallest levels. Yet a coin cannot ponder it's own existence but we can, we can also conceive of (Or know of) things we cannot see. Aura/E-discharge etc.


I'm just trying to think outside the box and who knows. Maybe we have an ability (Yet discovered/developed) to manipulate that aura/E-discharge. Meanwhile the coin or any other inanimate object never will yet still show signs of being made of the same *star stuff.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I'm just trying to think outside the box and who knows. Maybe we have an ability (Yet discovered/developed) to manipulate that aura/E-discharge. Meanwhile the coin or any other inanimate object never will yet still show signs of being made of the same *star stuff.
As bedlam said it's related to conductivity. We already know it can be manipulated. If you do things to increase your conductivity, like maybe getting your skin covered in a lot of salt-laden sweaty moisture, you will likely have a different kirlian photograph than before you started sweating.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Which doesn't prove nor disprove what I'm talking about.


Simply because it's known to act or react provable by science doesn't mean science knows all there is to know about the topic. It only knows what it can test for and prove within it's ability to do so at the present.

No?



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Which doesn't prove nor disprove what I'm talking about.


Simply because it's known to act or react provable by science doesn't mean science knows all there is to know about the topic. It only knows what it can test for and prove within it's ability to do so at the present.

No?
That's completely true. Science has never proven the belief that sacrificing virgins to appease the rain gods and end the drought is ineffective as a means for ending drought. And science is probably incapable of proving that belief false, so anyone who wishes to cling to that belief can do so as long as they wish without worrying too much about science disproving it.

However, from the science we do know and short of "proof", we can make some logical inferences on what is likely and what is not likely. It doesn't seem all that likely from our knowledge of science that sacrificing virgins will make it rain. Regarding kirlian photography, the processes involved are not all that mysterious so it's not too much of a stretch to think the photographic results are explainable by processes which we largely understand. But I agree that's not really proof there's not something else going on, though if someone argued there was something else going on, the burden would be on them to prove their claim and I've never seen any such proof.



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
But I agree that's not really proof there's not something else going on, though if someone argued there was something else going on, the burden would be on them to prove their claim and I've never seen any such proof.


The real meat and potatoes.....




posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Science is a method and spirit is an unproved loosely defined concept so it would be impossible to unify them. You would have to prove there is a spirit before you could attempt to unify them.


I'm just curious.

What physical manifestation would be deemed acceptable to academia as proof?


It would have to be measurable for a start.


So, you're saying that until Science comes up with a means to actually measure it then they will deny it's existence?



For example.

The Human Aura was and still is considered by many as fictitious or paranormal



Maybe it just took science a bit longer to come up with the means to capture it on film?
edit on 23-6-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)


What you have there is Kirlian Photography


Kirlian photography is a collection of photographic techniques used to capture the phenomenon of electrical coronal discharges. It is named after Semyon Kirlian, who, in 1939 accidentally discovered that if an object on a photographic plate is connected to a high-voltage source, an image is produced on the photographic plate.[1] The technique has been variously known as "electrography", "electrophotography", "corona discharge photography" (CDP),[4] "bioelectrography", "gas discharge visualization (GDV)", "eletrophotonic imaging (EPI)", and, in Russian literature, "Kirlianography".

Kirlian photography has been the subject of mainstream scientific research, parapsychology research and art. To a large extent, It has been co-opted by promoters of fringe science and paranormal health claims in books, magazines, workshops, and web sites.


Science confirms it exists because its observable and can be repeated. High voltage coronal discharge is measurable / observable. Its simply a visualization of an electrical process.

You dont have to know how something works to say there is something there. But if you are going to give it a defining label like 'spirit' there has to be some agreement of the definition and proof that it physically fits the definition.
edit on 23-6-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
What you have there is Kirlian Photography



Yes I know it's Kirlian photography.

That's why I provided a link to Kirlian photography




Originally posted by SLAYER69
Maybe it just took science a bit longer to come up with the means to capture it on film?

edit on 23-6-2013 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Unification theory of Science & Spirit?

I thought Atoms unified everything.............?






new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join