Dongle wrote:
Please explain your knowing the origin of life.
Here I only meant that the origin is not "out of this world". Can easily been misunderstood. Since we have a hard time defining what is life the origin is also hard to define. When is something alive? Anyway the most theories regarding the beginning is about various chemicals and molecules interacting with the help of sunlight and stuff. But our research seems to be focus on conditions on this planet in "early" stages.
IMO God is not a concept, but since you feel it is, let us explore the origins of the word God, and in most cases the words assigned to other deities. Is it not possible that the word was used to label the inner peace and connectedness experienced by an enlightened human being?
God or god or whatever you label it is a concept or mental creation. "God" used to mean "invoked one". Probably has origin in the indo-european languages. As do a lot of words.
This is a fair point, tell me without the word forgotten what would you have done with your keys?
I have misplaced them.
Belief systems change, as has the requirements for what can be considered scientific proof, and they shall continue to change.
Of course.
Your post is based on a belief, a belief that some other belief is not necessary.
Well not really. I do not have to believe in gravity in order to stay on this planet. The belief that I can fly do not prevent me from falling. Gravity exist whether I believe in it or not. We can explain gravity without the need to create an explanation. Why should we need to create an entity or something to explain the universe? When we create that entity we create more questions and we are back where we started.
Newtonian Physics until the 20th century was the accepted scientific standard, until Einstein, since then quantum mechanics has challenged Einstein's established research. Does this mean that Newton should not have been a physicist or that Einstein should not have considered new ways of understanding the world, because the generally accepted rules assumed he could not prove what he was trying to?
Relative theory and quantum physics both exists and work. The problem is that they do not work together. RT for big things and QP for small.
Einstein never proved that his theory was correct. It was proven because it predicted behavior in the universe which could be observed.
RT and QP is the best we have at the moment and there is a lot of work to replace them with a single system.
Of course one should put forward new theories but they have to be testable in order for them to work. God cannot be tested. The Self cannot be tested. Therefor it has no scientific value. That is why I am interested in brain scanning and such because it can give an explanation to the experience.
IMO, each scientific discovery throughout the course of history has been a subjective representation of reality, a reality that is an illusion. It seems Ninjin you are arguing for and against this reality, and or your own.
Well not really subjective but yes all science does is try to explain the universe and other things as good as possible and it is a work in progress. Probably never to be completed.
The mental image of the world is an illusion. This world outside of you is not. Also the problem with saying that the world is an illusion is that it raises the question whether the illusion is only an illusion and so on. That is what you perceive as an illusion might not be an illusion, the perception of an illusion is only a side affect.
You avoided Webwander's statement concerning knowing, what does knowing mean to you? Do you find there is a difference, between knowing and belief?
Didn't see the statement.
Knowing is something that is based on proof that is outside yourself. Belief is something that has no proof hence you believe it to be true.
For example we know that we orbit the sun but we believe in a teapot orbiting the moon. We can prove the first statement the other one we can choose to believe in or not since we cannot prove or disprove it. Same goes with God or god. You can either believe in it or not but you cannot prove or disprove of it.