You see, I am saying that there is so much activity that is not measureable. Therefore, science is not a dependable source for a full explanation of life on this planet much less the universe or even the mind.
What if the following analogy is half way correct? Could the brain-mind be similar to the computer-internet? Could the brain be the hardware to connect to 'the mind'?
You see, I was surprised you didn't mention that in your comment on alzheimers.
**Allow me to state the Most unscientific statement possible. I believe Jesus is the Son of God. God said He was in everything and everything was in Him.
Looks untestable to me.**
Which was my intented point. Science does not accept the concept of belief, confidence or trust, unless they are applied to money. Doesn't that leave a rather gaping hole in their argument, or is this just an exercise to convince without using logical statements?
Are you in effect stating you must be 'shown' something before you believe it? Is that what testable amounts to? Do you actually believe some men landed on the moon? All you have seen have been photographs not 'the' men on 'the' moon. How would you 'test' that?
When one reads the newspapers of the day and several make similar statements, do you believe them because there is a concensus? Which reporter would bring to you the tested news?
It seems self-evident to me there is so much of LIFE that is completely untestable that it requires a system other than 'science' to endeavor an explanation of what we would call reality.
Friends, I am asking if my conjectures have substance, not stating just an opinion.
Science is unable to state an absolute because it is constantly COMPARING one thing to another to determine a conclusion. Einstein knew he NEEDED an Absolute factor to determine his conclusions.
For instance, your Absolute position in the universe is impossible to determine by the use of science because the Earth is spinning, the solar system is moving in some particular direction, the Milky Way is spinning and moving in a particular direction. So, Science is only able to determine a 'footprint' of one's approximate location.
The Creator by definition is the only one able to determine an Absolute point of location.
Just because we are unable to determine such an exact point has NO bearing on whether one exists or not.
My contention from this sylogism is that Absolutes exist whether science is able to determine them or not.
I wouldn't brag about that.
You see, I am saying that there is so much activity that is not measureable. Therefore, science is not a dependable source for a full explanation of life on this planet much less the universe or even the mind.
What's "dependable" about anything unscientific?
Are you in effect stating you must be 'shown' something before you believe it? Is that what testable amounts to? Do you actually believe some men landed on the moon? All you have seen have been photographs not 'the' men on 'the' moon. How would you 'test' that?
It's highly improbable that anyone faked the moon landings. When you model what the faking would involve, how incredibly many people would have to be in on the fraud, the obvious benefits of really doing it versus faking it and pretending you did it, the conclusion that it was successfully faked and successfully covered up all this time becomes ridiculous.
But your analogy is more apt than you intend. The kind of people to whom you can sell the "faked moon landing story" have something important in common with people who don't buy evolution. To reach either conclusion, you have to ignore an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. Some people just don't reason from evidence.
It seems self-evident to me there is so much of LIFE that is completely untestable that it requires a system other than 'science' to endeavor an explanation of what we would call reality.
I can only interpret this that you consider religious explanations more "real" than scientific ones. In my universe, religion deals with other areas.
Friends, I am asking if my conjectures have substance, not stating just an opinion.
But you are rejecting substantial (i.e, scientific) tests of your opinion in favor of . . . what?