---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : No, I don't "accept things at face value." I probably think as much about them as you do, except it's a different kind of thinking, that incorporates, to the best of my knowledge and understanding, the spiritual elements in life, which you appear to dismiss because they cannot be measured in any way that science accepts. Exactly. There are many "instruments" through which to measure and weigh our experience, our world, our lives and what happens in those lives. Some of it involves known scientific findings about certain things, some involves using our knowledge as amassed over our years alive and some it is a combination of feeling, intuition and logic. There is not enough "science" to answer all the questions I have throughout a single day. Why Salyavin is "speechless" at the assertion that science (as we know it and practice it) is purely man made is almost beyond me. Is that what you think I'm speechless about? Actually I'm speechless that anyone can know so little about something and still trumpet it like they are some sort of master who has both understood and gone beyond the knowledge. You don't give me any impression that you know how science works or what it's limitations might be. He acts as if "science" is some absolute, perfect discipline that has existed and continues to exist as some separate entity and we have simply discovered it sitting there. You are hallucinating really severely here. Nonsense. Humans created the concept of science, they have made all the scientific parameters and the rules for how they go about investigating the universe. Certain laws they are discovering seem to be absolute and true but the discipline itself is all man made. That is what I think Salyavin perhaps misunderstood about my statement. But then, he does consider him the Professor Peabody of the group and has little time for the other ignoramuses like myself who he doesn't like anyway. Don't worry, I'll stick around and offer my Ha'pporth on any subject I choose regardless of whether I like you or not. (I think it has something to do with the fact I can't stand that blowhard bawee who he finds, personally, fascinating. I just see bawee as some crazy scientific experiment gone badly awry, LOL). You are hallucinating again. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : What I am interested in is the relationship between the visible and the invisible worlds -- how they interact. I doubt whether that would mean anything to you, but I find it fascinating. Since science does not acknowledge an invisible world, I doubt whether it can be of any help. I am talking about the interactions between humans and all the other beings that inhabit this universe in realms we do not see. Angels act at a distance all the time. Of course, as a fan of science you will think such a statement meaningless or absurd, but I encourage you to keep an open mind. The impression I have at the moment is that your mind is more closed than most. Closed mind eh? Ok, luckily for us I've got a mind open enough to actually try and engage with the accusation rather than simply dismissing it. There's a belief round here that "science" is some sort of dogmatic statement about reality that refuses to consider alternative ideas and viewpoints. This is wildly in error but I see how you arrived at it, the trouble is you are joining the debate about what is and what isn't at a point when people who study psychology and parapsychology already have a rather good idea about what constitutes a reasonable explanation for things like angels. And it isn't invisible worlds. You may continue to believe in them if you wish but with no evidence other than "feelings" there's no reason for anybody else to. I think it's a problem of education that so many people these days are so ignorant of how science works. Ignorant isn't an insult BTW, it just means you don't know something. In order for me to persuade you there is merit in challenging beliefs and trying to work out what something means rather than taking it at face value I'd have to go through grade school education about physics, biology and chemistry and all the stuff that explains how the stuff of the universe actually works and extrapolate from that the likelihoods of their being angels and unicorns farting rainbows. It isn't narrow minded to dismiss something if it contradicts everything else you know, and this is exactly what scientists do not do! I didn't just dismiss Marshy when he said that consciousness is the unified field, I sat up because it isn't part of any mainstream thinking and asked for a further explanation. And I didn't get one. I read Marshy's books and sat through interminable lectures to no avail, if they know something deep about reality they sure aren't letting on what it actually is in a way it can be understood. The whole belief is explained only in wishy-washy terms in reference to other wishy-washy terms. This isn't the way physics works ad it's why nobody takes John Hagelin seriously. He has no argument to offer them that they can scrutinize. You'd think he would after all these decades. Not only that I've researched the whole story of unification and found that it was abandoned in the 70's by physicists because the only experiment anyone could think of to test it ended up disproving it. Even in Einstein's day the UF theory had been abandoned in favour of quantum theory but scientists (proper ones) never intended consciousness as an explanation in the first place! That's an entirely religious idea. That was a few years of work for me. Closed minded? I think not. And while you may have an open mind I don't think it's a healthy one, like a lot of people round here you accept things at face value and lack any way of challenging, or maybe any desire to challenge. That's what science really is, the desire to work out what is actually out there in the world independent of what we think of it.
