posted on Aug, 4 2013 @ 02:26 PM
Originally posted by -PLB-
Originally posted by filledcup
there is alot that science is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of science.
When we apply your same logic to any other concept, we come to the same conclusions. for instance:
there is a lot that religion is currently unable to observe. more reason why we should not put our faith of existence in the hands of religion.
When we use your logic, you are basically saying that we should not put our faith in anything. I propose that we put our faith in the things that work
best. Praying that a disease is cured has a lot worse track record of success than modern science based medicine. So for my personal health I would
put my faith in science.
If for you personally religion (or other world view) works better than science, then that is fine by me. As long as nobody it forcing his religion
upon others, I am ok with it. I do despise religious parents who deny their kids vaccination because they believe its them getting mortally ill is
very good. but you will see that i dont aim to simply chastize science. but since science was formed out of the minds of philosophical men and
Spiritual seekers, we must acknowledge the spiritual roots of science and logic, and thus of existence.
it will happen you know? mark my words. science and religion will unite. it will become the logical thing to do. religious aspirations will be
disclosed in a systematic and scientific process. and scientific knowledge will be referenced to it's non-physical and thought controlling
why has noone responed to my post on the topic of the 'quantum enigma'
why is it that when we observe a particle it stays a particle, but when we are not looking it stays as a wave? this conundrum of particle wave is
if we point a camera at it, wont it still stay as a wave? it is only through the introduction of a human observer, a conscious living entity
possessing thought faculty, that this transition from wave to particle occurs. which rightfully suggests that thought is affecting the experiment.
why is this?? well, a duck could talk to another duck. and a dog could talk to another dog. a spanish man can communicate with another spanish man in
spanish. and an english man can communicate to another man in english. thus, thought, communicates with thought. and that is why thought affects the
experiments. we are observing the backdrop of thought. the all encompassing intelligence which binds and drives the structure of our universe. that
higher intelligence, i call God.
it's not a big deal. we can pursue science.. but we mustnt forget that God is the supreme and to him all praise must be given. we cannot
mathematically map out consciousness. we can mathematically map out logical things only. but natural things are completely seperate from science and
they can not venture very far without meeting up with visions of the hand of God at work.
the question of when is only a matter of the question "how many divide by zero errors will it take?"
edit on 4-8-2013 by filledcup because: (no