Science seeks physical "proof" where Spiritual practice seeks awakening from within.

[exchemist]

1: So physical proof
2: So again proof of theory and often that is a physical result.
3: The level of wisdom one realize in spiritual practice will be different from person to person. so we will understand the same truth in different ways because, we can see the truth we have realized, but if someone comes along who have realized higher truth, they would naturally understand more then others.

You don't seem to know what proof means. Science cannot seek proof of its theories, as they are in principle not provable. If a theory passes a test, that is evidence in favour of the theory, but not proof.

Proof would mean some result showing that the theory cannot be incorrect. But any theory in science could be shown to be wrong tomorrow, if someone were to come forward with new data that did not fit. This has happened many times in science and it happens all the time to this day. This is why scientific theories are always evolving.

 

[gnostic]

Science seeks physical "proof" where Spiritual practice seeks awakening from within.

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured, whereas Spiritual practice measure the wisdom that arises from within each person, so it is a personal answer that arises, and it will differ from person to person what they have awakened to.

What part of the situation in both science and spiritual practice is difficult for you to grasp?

If I were to take this as literal, then the only “within” would be bones, tissues, blood and other fluids.

 

[gnostic]

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured,

As Polymath257 and exchemist have already explained to you, with science, scientists seek evidence to test any explanatory (eg hypotheses, theories, etc), they don’t seek proofs.

You are confusing proofs with evidence. They are not the same things.

Secondly, proof isn’t “physical”. It is abstract possible solutions, but this solution are often in the form of logical statements, like mathematical equations, formulas, metrics/constants, or variables and numbers written and combined together.

Evidence is what we actually observed, measured, compared and tested. Evidence is the physical, not proof.

Since proof is part of the explanation in a model, then the evidence will either verify the proof or refute the proof.

Do not confuse evidence and proof, Amanaki.

 

[Etritonakin]

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured, whereas Spiritual practice measure the wisdom that arises from within each person, so it is a personal answer that arises, and it will differ from person to person what they have awakened to.

What part of the situation in both science and spiritual practice is difficult for you to grasp?

I don't think they should be separate -or that they are opposed -or really different.
I want absolute proof for the validity of spiritual practice -that it produces optimal results.
Adherence to the principles behind the ten commandments, for example -whether you believe in God or not, can quite scientifically be shown to produce a peaceful and wonderful world.
It is also true that if not for arrangements of atoms and energies -or the real things which existed prior to what we call the "physical" universe -of which God would literally be composed, there could be no spirituality.

Spiritual truth is universal -not different for each -though each would walk a different path toward it.

 

[Tazarah]

Exactly. And with all the physical proof available to them in existence they still can't prove that a single celled organism grew fins, turned into a fish, grew legs, came out of the ocean, grew fur, turned into a monkey, and then turned into a human.

 

[rational experiences]

First, science does NOT seek 'proof'. It seeks testable theories that can be actively challenged and still pass all tests.

Next, the term 'physical' is also a misnomer here. What is required is *public* testing, so that each person can observe what is going on. It is only later than the regions where this works are labeled 'physical'.

If a 'truth' varies from person to person, it isn't actually 'true'. The 'truth' is *defined* by that which does not depend on the individual observer.

Now, wisdom and knowledge are different goals. Science (mostly) looks for knowledge while spirituality (mostly) looks for wisdom.

Science is a liar.

Science looks at evidence. Every state that is present.

Science then contemplates nothing, when none of the presence existed.

And then claim self sane and also of all aware knowledge, as if just the human life was the Creator.

Science talks I am creating. Science in relative God history, a stone planet, from which all machine parts are taken from, attack...destroy natural and convert natural.

The Bible said the scientist is defined by human male present personality traits as the Destroyer. When he lives by this creed he then tries to destroy natural...by claiming it does not exist, to begin again when he presses the button on his machine reactor.

Which is exactly what he owns today, that very thought, that from out of the state nothing, he will react.

Yet not in any of his scientific presence does he personally own nothing.

 

[atanu]

..
Neither. Science operates through rules and reason, whereas the spiritual operates through personal need and imagination.
.

Okay. Let us assume that science operates through rules and reason and spiritual operates through personal need and imagination.

Suppose that the knowledge of the four fundamental forces and also the products of that knowledge fail to give me peace, which is my main need. And suppose that following along the spiritual teaching (that ego-mind can be observed in meditation and that centralization of mind leads to peace) is part of my experience. Then is the 'spiritual' knowledge/experience devoid of reason?

 

[rational experiences]

Okay. Let us assume that science operates through rules and reason and spiritual operates through personal need and imagination.

Suppose that the knowledge of the four fundamental forces and also the products of that knowledge fail to give me peace, which is my main need. And suppose that following along the spiritual teaching (that ego-mind can be observed in meditation and that centralization of mind leads to peace) is part of my experience. Then is the 'spiritual' knowledge/experience devoid of reason?

Experience exists first, to reason about it, secondary.

 

[atanu]

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured, whereas Spiritual practice measure the wisdom that arises from within each person, so it is a personal answer that arises, and it will differ from person to person what they have awakened to.

What part of the situation in both science and spiritual practice is difficult for you to grasp?

I don't agree that it's a purely subjective call as to what one is awakened to. Say that to a Zen Master. Being awakened to the idea you are the 2nd coming of Jesus, is not Enlightenment.

In reality, Awakening can be approached scientifically, in the broad sense of what the sciences follow which are in three basic strands: Injunction, Investigation or experimentation, and confirmation of results. In following a practice, the seeker or "researcher" follows the guidelines of the experiment through meditative techniques. Then they gather or collect the data from following the experiment and report their results, i.e;, "I had a satori experience". Then other qualified experimentator compare their results, with the result of others, with your results. A young student saying, "I've arrived", when the master looks at what he's arrived to, sends him back for more training on the equipment.

So it does follow a broadly scientific approach, while it's tools and techniques are specifically geared towards interior explorations, as oppose to exterior one's in the empiric sciences.

I agree with @Windwalker.

 

[Spirit of Light]

If I were to take this as literal, then the only “within” would be bones, tissues, blood and other fluids.

You dont have a soul/spirit?

 

[Bear Wild]

I would not say your answer is wrong according to the OP The reason for this OP comes from a discussion i was apart of where the "science geeks" where very much surprised that i was not looking at physical "evidence" to "prove" the teaching to be right or wrong

So the OP is a bit about how different people see the two different ways to look for answer that satisfy them enough

What is with the wording "science geeks", this seems to contain an implied derogatory message from you. Anyone familiar with science is aware of its limitations including many famous scientists. Anyone can believe in what they think is right or wrong and that measure cannot be measured with science. When statements of right or wrong are applied to others outside of oneself then one should have a way of demonstrating why something is right or wrong for another individual.

 

[Spirit of Light]

As Polymath257 and exchemist have already explained to you, with science, scientists seek evidence to test any explanatory (eg hypotheses, theories, etc), they don’t seek proofs.

You are confusing proofs with evidence. They are not the same things.

Secondly, proof isn’t “physical”. It is abstract possible solutions, but this solution are often in the form of logical statements, like mathematical equations, formulas, metrics/constants, or variables and numbers written and combined together.

Evidence is what we actually observed, measured, compared and tested. Evidence is the physical, not proof.

Since proof is part of the explanation in a model, then the evidence will either verify the proof or refute the proof.

Do not confuse evidence and proof, Amanaki.

so evidence is not a proof that something is real?

 

[Spirit of Light]

What is with the wording "science geeks", this seems to contain an implied derogatory message from you. Anyone familiar with science is aware of its limitations including many famous scientists. Anyone can believe in what they think is right or wrong and that measure cannot be measured with science. When statements of right or wrong are applied to others outside of oneself then one should have a way of demonstrating why something is right or wrong for another individual.

Have you heard about jokes? Sience geeks was fun way to jokes a bit toward those who only are sience as the real answer.
As you know i have very little faith in sience.

 

[rational experiences]

The religious science quotes were a researched applied study of life sacrificed that said males in human science were wrong...as the stated statement of the END.

For when you apply research and the research proved that life was sacrificed by GOD....not by any other circumstance, the theme was what of God destroyed life, and it was the radiation levels....from out of the ground/tombs, radiating mass of gases that became stone.

Seeing space owns a radiating burning gas that is not pressurized into stone it is cold enough to live within.

Historically if you were inside the gases of God, the stone you would be pressurized entombed yourself.....ever wonder why you end up burying your dead life in the body of God or why you self combust the body. It is called copying.

Therefore when science says I can research and be enabled to copy....you copied ground fission which occurs naturally on the ground in Nature. PHI circles therefore form atop of the ground mass of crops, living Nature proving that science caused that attack.

For science took the real historic etched in stone patterns, with no ground coverage and no trees or life and put part of the reaction inside of a machine.

Why you were all taught to never copy God...as the end statement review theme of science of the occult.

 

[atanu]

A very clear thing is that Science does seek physical proof that can be measured, whereas Spiritual practice measure the wisdom that arises from within each person, so it is a personal answer that arises, and it will differ from person to person what they have awakened to.

What part of the situation in both science and spiritual practice is difficult for you to grasp?

Dear Amanaki. My half-cent below.

I think that there is a need to acknowledge that spirituality has elements of reasoning, experimentation and validation and that spiritualists will do themselves good by not neglecting these three aspects. At the same time, some scientists should realise that pure empiricism is self-refuting. For example, a claim that all that we have is bone-flesh and there is no other (soul, or self, or spirit etc.) is not based on empirical evidence.

Also, upon investigation, one may realise that the fundamental nature of existence is to know. In this, the sciences endeavour to know the objects of mind-senses while spirituality endeavours to know the subject itself by introversion of sense-intellect. For peace, which is the goal of everyone -- no one ever says I want unpeace -- embracing both the knowledge paths can only lead to success. Rejecting one over the other is tantamount to constraining oneself and is a recipe for disease and painful death.
...

 

[rational experiences]

Dear Amanaki. My half-cent below.

I think that there is a need to acknowledge that spirituality has elements of reasoning, experimentation and validation and that spiritualists will do themselves good by not neglecting these three aspects. At the same time, some scientists should realise that pure empiricism is self-refuting. For example, a claim that all that we have is bone-flesh and there is no other (soul, or self, or spirit etc.) is not based on empirical evidence.

Also, upon investigation, one may realise that the fundamental nature of existence is to know. In this, the sciences endeavour to know the objects of mind-senses while spirituality endeavours to know the subject itself by introversion of sense-intellect. For peace, which is the goal of everyone -- no one ever says I want unpeace -- embracing both the knowledge paths can only lead to success. Rejecting one over the other is tantamount to constraining oneself and is a recipe for disease and painful death.
...

Why do you always put threats to life and life continuance in spiritual information?

 

[atanu]

Why do you always put threats to life and life continuance in spiritual information?

I do not understand you (btw, I do not understand 99.99% of what you write). Is it against the spiritual norm to talk of death or disease?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Dear Amanaki. My half-cent below.

I think that there is a need to acknowledge that spirituality has elements of reasoning, experimentation and validation and that spiritualists will do themselves good by not neglecting these three aspects. At the same time, some scientists should realise that pure empiricism is self-refuting. For example, a claim that all that we have is bone-flesh and there is no other (soul, or self, or spirit etc.) is not based on empirical evidence.

Also, upon investigation, one may realise that the fundamental nature of existence is to know. In this, the sciences endeavour to know the objects of mind-senses while spirituality endeavours to know the subject itself by introversion of sense-intellect. For peace, which is the goal of everyone -- no one ever says I want unpeace -- embracing both the knowledge paths can only lead to success. Rejecting one over the other is tantamount to constraining oneself and is a recipe for disease and painful death.
...

Thank you for a very good answer @atanu
I agree with what you saying here, but also for spiritual people there is a validation of the scripture, it is seeking the better answer to something we study in the scriptures, but not to better the scripture itself, what we seek to better is our own understanding of it, and this is where the cultivation of body and mind comes in. It is like growing a plant, without the seed, no plant, without the nourishment no plant.
Without study, no wisdom, without the cultivation of self, no wisdom arises.
So the wisdom for us is like the plant that arises above the ground. The better we nourish it the higher and better it becomes, just like the plant, the more we cultivate the soil the plant is standing in, the better it grow and the higher/bigger it becomes

 

[rational experiences]

The teachings for self, spirit and spiritual self awareness owned human aware explanations about how God functioned in light as movement of the spirit.

How it was discussed as soul movement, what supported and allowed our natural life to exist in the conditions of natural light 12 and even balances 12 clear cold night time gases.

Movement of the spirit was the reference God and it is said no man is God...so no man is the Soul of God...and no God in the Heavens is the God of stone.

Exactly how it was explained as a spiritual explanation, which does not seek to destroy, change or convert God.

Why we know science is a liar. Science is occultism, and it might have branched into various other philosophies, but its unnatural basis is occult history first. All other sciences came afterwards.

Cold gases and hot burning gases own an interactive reactive discussion that depicts movement of the spirit upon the waters......God.

O circular movement of rotating burning gases cooling......from a point of burning to own nothing . to the side value - quantified as a rib in science, falls to a spin into the value of G.....G moves into value O...cooled burning gas activated point gone...then light by sound value splits into O as D and D...and then disappears.

So I always said as spiritual Healer advice, the soul is not real...and I was correct, for I knew what it defined by description of knowing where God explanation belonged in reference to spiritual teaching advice. Knew its teachings, accepted and trusted in those teachings, so did not ask of God for anything for it was already provided.

 

[rational experiences]

I do not understand you (btw, I do not understand 99.99% of what you write). Is it against the spiritual norm to talk of death or disease?

Natural in spirit already knows its purpose is to live and survive. Death is just natural. Coercive applied reasoning is always owner of a threat of sickness or death if you do not abide reasoning. A spiritual known tactic against spirituality being enabled to live naturally.