• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Genetic Code is INFORMATION: Proof of Intelligent Design

gnostic

The Lost One
The word 'science' can be used in many ways.....see the dictionary.
Sure, there are.

Social science and political science are the first ones that pop up in my heads, but neither of them are really science. Attaching "science" don't make it science.

What I will admit that social science (depending on what fields in ss we are talking about) come closer to actual science than parapsychology.

Like I have said before, paranormal can make good stories to be told, whether it be novels or movies, but the paranormal have no basis in reality.

Look. If you want to believe in paranormal, supernatural and parapsychology, then that's your prerogatives, and it is none of my business, but it still doesn't give you the rights to call it science, when they are not.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Like I have said before, paranormal can make good stories to be told, whether it be novels or movies, but the paranormal have no basis in reality.
I believe much of the paranormal does have a basis in reality. I have studied data and researchers from multiple subfields of paranormal studies and I believe beyond all reasonable doubt that it has its basis in reality and is beyond the reach of what you call 'science'.

Another way of looking at it is that the paranormal is part of the normal but science's reach is limited at this stage.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I believe much of the paranormal does have a basis in reality. I have studied data and researchers from multiple subfields of paranormal studies and I believe beyond all reasonable doubt that it has its basis in reality and is beyond the reach of what you call 'science'.
Then do you agree that paranormal and parapsychology have nothing to do with "science"?

Another way of looking at it is that the paranormal is part of the normal but science's reach is limited at this stage.

Sure, science have limitations. I have never claimed that science don't have limits.

But limits or not, parapsychology is still pseudoscience.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Then do you agree that paranormal and parapsychology have nothing to do with "science"?



Sure, science have limitations. I have never claimed that science don't have limits.

But limits or not, parapsychology is still pseudoscience.
You are still just wordplaying. What I care a about is what these things can tell us about the nature of reality beyond the physical sciences.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Actually I am thinking about the same with you. :p
Beyond all the word name-calling: Why do you think controlled experiments and analyses of bodies of cases looking for quantity, quality and consistency could not possibly have things to tell us about reality?
 

ftacky

Member
Nor do you -- but perhaps we might consider whether or not some measure of probability -- based on real and available information -- might at least give us reason to at least posit a likely guess.

The problem is that many times, we NEVER hear the word "guess" even though it is exactly that. How many times have we been presented with a "guess" in a "fact-like" manner?

You will still "believe" in a magic creation with all kinds of intent and design and purposes of all sorts, yet you will have absolutely zero evidence for any of it..."

If you have spent any time researching the subject of origins, you have undoubtedly been presented with scientific evidence of creation - just because you refuse it doesn't suddenly invalidate it.

Now, we can also make a simple observation by doing any experiment at home -- if all the objects on a table-top are moving away from each other, and moving away faster, the farther from the centre they are, then it is really most reasonable to assume that they were all closer together a minute ago, and much closer together 10 minutes ago, and all so very much closer together an hour ago -- and so on until we can only conclude that they were all in the same place at some (calculable) time in the past.

Sure, its reasonable to assume things may have started that way, but to go so far as to say all mass was compressed into a single point (as some believers of the big bang suggest)? Since when do we see huge masses compressed into a single point? Or, as others suggest, or sued to suggest, that there was nothing in the beginning, and after the big bag, all planets and stars came from nothing? All of these "guesses" are violations of physical laws; they are NOT consistent with our observations. Of course, some will want to make "exceptions" to those physical laws to fit their various conveniences. Any such "guesses" are anything but scientific.

Now, what was before that? You got me -- I have no idea. And here's where the science-minded and the religion-minded part ways -- I'm quite comfortable saying "I don't know." Others can't live until they've got a definitive answer -- even if they have to make it up and then, as you put it believe it.

IMHO, If you were truly comfortable not knowing the answers, you would stop "guessing" and simply say "I don't know" and go no further. In this regard, you are just as religious as anyone else.

Here is some pure UNscientific garbage spewed by the "scientific' community:

“The universe is flat. It has zero total energy and it could have begun from nothing ...
If you have nothing in quantum mechanics, you'll always get something. It's that simple.”

"Theoretical" physicist Lawrence Krauss, “A Universe From Nothing”, October 21, 2009, Atheist Alliance International event.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. ”Professor Stephen Hawking, ”Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God”, September 2, 2010, The Guardian Online.

Matthew 7:
The Narrow and Wide Gates

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

We will notice that Jesus did not mention the educational status of those on either road. We can have ten PhDs but if our intent is to deny God and His Lordship over us, we will be on the Broad Road running away from our Creator. And in complete darkness. And making hearty attempts to drag the rest of us down with them.

Don't let ANY human being tell you they can guess how the world began or how life began. They can't even BEGIN to guess...
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
No, 'pseudoscience' is just a vague, derogatory judgmental word made popular in recent times by individuals vested in keeping a materialist view of the universe.

I think that is wrong again. For one, controlled experiments can be done and that would be scientific methodology. Secondly, as in the Social Sciences, research can be done on phenomena looking at quantity, quality and consistency of data followed by analysis and conclusion. This is also a type of 'science'.
And I'm nearly sixty and have been interested in the supernatural and paranormal all my life and have yet to see anything useful come out of research into it.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Beyond all the word name-calling: Why do you think controlled experiments and analyses of bodies of cases looking for quantity, quality and consistency could not possibly have things to tell us about reality?
Because there has been loads of "controlled experiments and analyses of bodies of cases" and no useful information about reality has come from it?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
And I'm nearly sixty and have been interested in the supernatural and paranormal all my life and have yet to see anything useful come out of research into it.
How about Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation Memories, and a list of other subjects. They have told me a lot about the nature of reality. Pretty useful to me at least.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Because there has been loads of "controlled experiments and analyses of bodies of cases" and no useful information about reality has come from it?
Who judges that?? I believe a ton of useful information has come from tit all. For example, I believe in the existence of an afterlife beyond all reasonable doubt based off of the evidence. That's something useful to know.

Perhaps your interest is just in application to the hard sciences? I believe science's reach at this time is short but my interest is in the nature of reality and not just hard science.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
How about Near Death Experiences, Childhood Reincarnation Memories, and a list of other subjects. They have told me a lot about the nature of reality. Pretty useful to me at least.
They have told me as little about the nature of reality as alien abduction experiences have told us about whether aliens are actually abducting people.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
They have told me as little about the nature of reality as alien abduction experiences have told us about whether aliens are actually abducting people.
Well, I think to understand it better we need to have a framework of the universe. I looked into this for decades and those that best make sense of all this phenomena are those of eastern/Indian, Theosophical and Occult traditions. They best present a framework in which the so-called paranormal is really part of the normal in their expanded understanding of reality
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Who judges that?? I believe a ton of useful information has come from tit all. For example, I believe in the existence of an afterlife beyond all reasonable doubt based off of the evidence. That's something useful to know.
I see your point. If believing in the existence of an afterlife makes people act in ways that are useful to society then that information is useful.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I see your point. If believing in the existence of an afterlife makes people act in ways that are useful to society then that information is useful.
That part of it is less interesting to me. I want to know what is the most reasonable objective position.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Well, I think to understand it better we need to have a framework of the universe. I looked into this for decades and those that best make sense of all this phenomena are those of eastern/Indian, Theosophical and Occult traditions. They best present a framework in which the so-called paranormal is really part of the normal in their expanded understanding of reality
I also looked into this for decades and the more I looked the more logically contradictory their individual "expanded understanding of reality"s became until I just gave up.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I also looked into this for decades and the more I looked the more logically contradictory their individual "expanded understanding of reality"s became until I just gave up.
What were your main issues? I'll give you my thoughts on those issues (if you are interested).
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
That part of it is less interesting to me. I want to know what is the most reasonable objective position.
The most reasonable objective position is to treat every story as an anecdote until it can be scientifically verified. Some Hindus who have NDEs claim to meet Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. So, is there a way to create something that can hitch a ride with whatever it is that meets this Yamraj and maybe drag him back here so we can interrogate him about the afterlife and get some useful details out of him?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
The most reasonable objective position is to treat every story as an anecdote until it can be scientifically verified.
Science can not verify anecdotes. The best study of them includes the collection of bodies of cases studied for quantity, quality and consistency with the various possibilities as to what is going on fully considered.
Some Hindus who have NDEs claim to meet Yamraj, the Hindu god of the dead. So, is there a way to create something that can hitch a ride with whatever it is that meets this Yamraj and maybe drag him back here so we can interrogate him about the afterlife and get some useful details out of him?
The evidence and teachings seem to show that the astral plane does have different cultural realms built by the thoughts of those who have gone before. In the NDE we see how people are 'guided' to a place appropriate for them. They do not find themselves in some random place.
 
Top