If you believe in love, you believe in God

[exchemist]

I'm aware of what science thinks (falsely). "Heat" and "cold" are relative "sensations" (feelings)......in other words "illusions".
What CAN be measured is "temperature"... and even that has limitations.
So tell me then, at what degree of temperature does it become "warm" and ceases to be "cool"...….or at what precise immeasurable infinite degree of temperature does it cease to be "cold" and begin to be "hot" ???

No. It is hot and cold that are sensations, not heat and cold.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Please explain why you think science is wrong. Can you demonstrate objectively some flaw that it has when it comes to temperature?

And what limitations do you think there are when it comes to measuring temperature?

And why do you think that subjective terms like cool and warm need to have specifically defined limits? Shall I say physical size is meaningless because science can't say when something stops being small and becomes large?

Your lack of scientific literacy seems to be limiting you.

Perhaps science's lack of meta-physical literacy is limiting them (scientist) and you ??

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

No. It is hot and cold that are sensations, not heat and cold.

Yes, I stand corrected......thanks.

 

[Tiberius]

Perhaps science's lack of meta-physical literacy is limiting them (scientist) and you ??

Science deals with what can be measured. If you are proposing something that can't be measured and has no method of showing that it exists, why should I believe you?

And I'll point out that you didn't answer my questions, so I shall ask them again.

Please explain why you think science is wrong. Can you demonstrate objectively some flaw that it has when it comes to temperature?

And what limitations do you think there are when it comes to measuring temperature?

And why do you think that subjective terms like cool and warm need to have specifically defined limits? Shall I say physical size is meaningless because science can't say when something stops being small and becomes large?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Science deals with what can be measured. If you are proposing something that can't be measured and has no method of showing that it exists, why should I believe you?

And I'll point out that you didn't answer my questions, so I shall ask them again.

Please explain why you think science is wrong. Can you demonstrate objectively some flaw that it has when it comes to temperature?

And what limitations do you think there are when it comes to measuring temperature?

And why do you think that subjective terms like cool and warm need to have specifically defined limits? Shall I say physical size is meaningless because science can't say when something stops being small and becomes large?

I never stated "science is wrong" , I only suggested that humanity's understanding of our physical world is misled by fallible human beings who only see what they are looking for. (want to see)
They ignore ANY evidence to the contrary if it does not fit into their preconceived notions about physical reality in general.
To "ignore" something that should and could be known (knowledge) , is called "ignorance".

Science ignores the meta-physical realities of our physical existence because they are a controlled institution (like all others) who in turn use whatever "discovery" they do make to further control what people think about their own reality. (witness the life of Nikola Tesla)

Fortunately, this history old delema is coming to an end. We are entering into an age now where science and spirituality will merge.
This will be the dawn of a new age that will once again advance TRUE "science", for the benefit of all humanity.
And science will be forced to admit their error ( so get ready ).

Scales of measure are quantitative, and don't answer the only real question that needs to be answered , if one wants the truth
of anything. And the only real question is one word....."why" ? ( Is the glass have full or half empty ? )

 

[columbus]

They ignore ANY evidence to the contrary if it does not fit into their preconceived notions about physical reality in general.

No, that's the religious way to do things.

Scientists take all the evidence into account.
Tom

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

No, that's the religious way to do things.

Scientists take all the evidence into account.
Tom

Yes, of course......and they just happen to be the sole authority on what constitutes "evidence"....
how convenient .

 

[Tiberius]

Science ignores the meta-physical realities of our physical existence...

Such as what?

And again, you have been unable to answer my questions. I shall ask them again. Please answer them this time.

Can you demonstrate objectively some flaw that science has when it comes to temperature?

And what limitations do you think there are when it comes to measuring temperature?

And why do you think that subjective terms like cool and warm need to have specifically defined limits? Shall I say physical size is meaningless because science can't say when something stops being small and becomes large?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, of course......and they just happen to be the sole authority on what constitutes "evidence"....
how convenient .

Yeah, it's all just a big conspiracy theory, isn't it...?

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Yeah, it's all just a big conspiracy theory, isn't it...?

Yeah, and kind of like how all the true conspiracies in this world are just "theories".

 

[columbus]

Yes, of course......and they just happen to be the sole authority on what constitutes "evidence"....
how convenient .

You must not understand the scientific method.
"They" is everyone. That's the point to publishing. Your methods, data, and conclusions all get held up to scrutiny by everyone, including highly educated people who disagree with you.

Religion doesn't have that. Anybody can make any claims that they want. And any claims, no matter how implausible, get accepted by the people who want them to be true and rejected by the people who prefer a different "truth".

That's the difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Science has objective standards. Religion doesn't.
Tom

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

You must not understand the scientific method.
"They" is everyone. That's the point to publishing. Your methods, data, and conclusions all get held up to scrutiny by everyone, including highly educated people who disagree with you.

Religion doesn't have that. Anybody can make any claims that they want. And any claims, no matter how implausible, get accepted by the people who want them to be true and rejected by the people who prefer a different "truth".

That's the difference between scientific truth and religious truth. Science has objective standards. Religion doesn't.
Tom

I am perfectly aware of the scientific process, thankyou. Scientific research depends on "funding". In other words,
it depends on somebody somewhere giving the dollars to buy the equipment, develop the experimentation, and pay the people
employed in the field.

And the people providing the "funding" ( Gov., private business, individuals, etc. ), are not in the business of handing out free money
because they are interested in the truth of anything. So spare me the heroics please.

Nikola Tesla, one of the greatest minds of our time, discovered a source of energy that could power the whole world. Only he wanted to give it all away for free (free energy), as it should be. So, how much was your electric bill (DEBT) last month ???

Also, you should learn the difference between "religion" and spirituality......because they are NOT the same thing...
I detest "religion" and have nothing to do with it.

 

[columbus]

I am perfectly aware of the scientific process, thankyou. Scientific research depends on "funding".

Nope.
You don't understand the scientific method.

What you're referring to is the religious method. Tell people what they want to hear and you'll get mountains of money. You needn't back up your claims with anything that can be distinguished from delusion, as long as people like it.
That's religion.
Science doesn't work that way. Anybody can point out flaws in your method, or your conclusions, and other scientists will listen and change their views if you've got evidence and reason on your side.
Tom

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Nope.
You don't understand the scientific method.

What you're referring to is the religious method. Tell people what they want to hear and you'll get mountains of money. You needn't back up your claims with anything that can be distinguished from delusion, as long as people like it.
That's religion.
Science doesn't work that way. Anybody can point out flaws in your method, or your conclusions, and other scientists will listen and change their views if you've got evidence and reason on your side.
Tom

That's correct, the "religious" institution is a controlled institution......just like the scientific community is a controlled institution.
NEITHER is seriously seeking truth. All that matters is how much money and profit can be made from it's "investment".

In case you never noticed, this world and everything that happens here, revolves around money....and the "power" that goes with it.
And that "power" is to control and enslave the masses by keeping them in debt all their lives , so they don't have time to THINK.

MANY remarkable scientific discoveries have been made over time that NEVER see the light of day in this world....
much like all the "mysterious" items and artifacts (EVIDENCE) buried and hidden in the basements of countless museums and
religious institutions ( the Vatican for example ).

So, how much was that electric bill (DEBT) ?

 

[columbus]

That's correct, the "religious" institution is a controlled institution......just like the scientific community is a controlled institution.
NEITHER is seriously seeking truth. All that matters is how much money and profit can be made from it's "investment".

Well, that's not true and I have evidence.

But I do understand that it works for you to believe it. Because otherwise you'd have to apply evidence and reason to your ethics and world view.

I don't expect that to happen.
Tom

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

Well, that's not true and I have evidence.

But I do understand that it works for you to believe it. Because otherwise you'd have to apply evidence and reason to your ethics and world view.

I don't expect that to happen.
Tom

lol...."evidence" is only evidence, when it is accepted as such by a closed circle of "authorities" ( so called ).
and "reason" is in the eyes of the beholder...…..and most beholders are BLIND.

 

[columbus]

lol...."evidence" is only evidence, when it is accepted as such by a closed circle of "authorities" ( so called ).
and "reason" is in the eyes of the beholder...…..and most beholders are BLIND.

That's exactly the religious method I'm talking about.

If someone says things that are popular, they get a bunch of money and power. Like Falwell, the Pope, and Iranian mullahs. They don't have to prove anything.

In science, things don't work that way. Anybody who produces evidence that some well established theory is wrong becomes the new expert. But they have to prove it to the scientific community, they can't just make a popular claim.

Religionists can just make a claim, without producing any evidence. That's why there are so many different religions.
Tom

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

That's exactly the religious method I'm talking about.

If someone says things that are popular, they get a bunch of money and power. Like Falwell, the Pope, and Iranian mullahs. They don't have to prove anything.

In science, things don't work that way. Anybody who produces evidence that some well established theory is wrong becomes the new expert. But they have to prove it to the scientific community, they can't just make a popular claim.

Religionists can just make a claim, without producing any evidence. That's why there are so many different religions.
Tom

I'm sure I have already acknowledged that the religious institution is corrupt......and that I have nothing to do with it.
And also that the scientific institution is as well for the same reasons.

In much the same way that a person like myself whos thinking cannot be controlled..... is considered a "nut job" by my peers..
so is the scientist who has the ability and means to do independent research on his own , and if it does not agree with the
"mainstream" of thought at the time, they are said to be "rouge"......or even "mad" ( mad scientist ).

Why do you suppose that is ?

 

[columbus]

Why do you suppose that is ?

It isn't.
But I realize that you don't understand how science works. You can't tell the difference between objective beliefs and subjective beliefs.

So you confuse scientific knowledge for religious knowledge.
You aren't the first and you won't be the last.

Tom

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah, and kind of like how all the true conspiracies in this world are just "theories".

Spoken just like a conspiracy theorist.