Thread: What is difference between physical and spiritual world?

A thread related to this topic was closed recently by mods. so, please dont wander , just remain on the topic. Please.
I like this discusion.

My idea about how these worlds interact.

Our "Being" is made of SOUL and BODY. Both use same brain. When we sleep we are in spiritual world as there is no physical law aplicable to our dreams. We usually do amazing and impossible things.(just imagine yourself)
But when we wake up we arrive again in physical world. Then every law of science is aplicable on us.

it was just random thought. As i have based it 0n controversial concept of "s0ul". Spiritual world may not be dependent on soul, it may be because of life full of consciouness. So quarelling on Soul is pointless.
And in previous thread i noted a lot of scientific terms were being used, which i intended to unerstand, but very difficult. I request you , senior members, specially Strange, Lynx_Fox, pavlos, Cogito, Kalster and others to consider students of science who come here for learning.

Thank you all

What words were confusing you?

In short the answer to your title question is:

We have evidence for the physical world. We have no credible evidence for the spiritual one--none whatsoever. In simpler terms the physical word is real, the spiritual one not.

There is no evidence for a soul.
Dreams are the product of the physical interactions within of our sleeping brains. And of course we can imagine unreal things, both while dreaming (watches my sleeping cat's feet flicking as if he's running) or while fully awake.

We have great interest in teaching students of science--learning what constitutes scientific evidence, logic, deductive and inductive reasoning are all part of learning the scientific method. Enjoy the ride and don't be afraid to ask questions or get discourages if rebuffed a few times--that to is part of learning.

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

Our "Being" is made of SOUL and BODY.

Unsupported claim.

Both use same brain.

Unsupported claim.

When we sleep we are in spiritual world

Unsupported claim.

as there is no physical law aplicable to our dreams.

This can be answered in two ways: our dreams are the result of physical laws.
And the content of our dreams usually sticks to some physical laws (because they're based on our experiences, which also relies on physical laws).

So quarelling on Soul is pointless.

And yet much of your argument is predicated on the existence of one.
If you can't show that there actually is a soul then your points are moot.

soul defined by Cgito Ergo Sum

It is a music genre that is closely related to rhythm and blues, characterized by intensity of feeling and earthiness.

the concepts in previous thread which were difficult for me

1- how Higgs Boson fit in spirituality?
2- why religion is unnecessarily associated with spirituality, as both seem to be diferent?
3- is spirit same as concept of soul? and somebody said something about antimater.
4- I did not unerstand following, posted by pavlos

P1 - Souls are said to be immaterial
P2 - Immaterial things do not have spacial extension
P3 - In order for something to exist and reside in a place it must have spacial extension
P4 - The soul cannot be connected to the body b/c it does not have spacial extension
C - The belief in a soul is internally contradictory and thus the argument for a soul is unwarranted.

5- what is spacial extension?

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

soul defined by Cgito Ergo Sum

It is a music genre that is closely related to rhythm and blues, characterized by intensity of feeling and earthiness.

You apparently haven't read that "definition" since it's nothing to do with the topic.

1- how Higgs Boson fit in spirituality?

It doesn't.
One is science, the other isn't.
How does a chicken fit in mathematics?

2- why religion is unnecessarily associated with spirituality, as both seem to be diferent?

Do they?
Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used synonymously

3- is spirit same as concept of soul? and somebody said something about antimater.

You tell us: we don't have a viable definition for either.
And the "anti-matter" comment was, to say the least, a wild claim with zero support.

5- what is spacial extension?

Occupies space, takes up measurable room.

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

soul defined by Cgito Ergo Sum

It is a music genre that is closely related to rhythm and blues, characterized by intensity of feeling and earthiness.

That (mildly changed) definition was taken from Merriam-Webster.
I picked that definition to lighten up the discussion, because the thread was not going anywhere due to confusion about what a "soul" was
(which is logical, considering the multitude of definitions).

1- how Higgs Boson fit in spirituality?

Even if spirituality were a thing, why would anyone think it had anything to do with the Higgs boson?

It's a bit like asking how does purple fit in fluid dynamics. Just because we can think about both of them doesn't mean there has to be any link between them.

1- how Higgs Boson fit in spirituality?

You know that thing where they say, "there are no stupid questions" ...

all right. i am sorry. in previous thread there were a least 15 posts asociated with this Higgs Boson(god particle?) and spirituality.

"God particle" was just a silly nickname for a physics concept, not a theological proposition.

Originally Posted by adelady

"God particle" was just a silly nickname for a physics concept, not a theological proposition.

I sometimes get the feeling that it was correctly nicknamed the "god particle", because some of the "arguments" put forward in its name tend to father "Jesus!" as a response.

I thought it was called "that goddamned particle" because nobody had the technology to find it and prove it was real?

To make the claim that we are in some kind of "spirit world" when we sleep seems absurd to me given the fact that we still do not fully understand the human brain. The logical conclusion, if one is so inclined to jump to it, is that the chemical and electrical functions of the brain are responsible for things such as dreams and hallucinations and out of body experiences, etc. Until we have sufficient evidence to say that these interactions are not the reason for the aforementioned phenomena, I feel uncomfortable putting any serious thought into spirit realms and Gods.

It just seems like yet another case of hearing hooves and thinking, "Zebras!"

Originally Posted by Daecon

I thought it was called "that goddamned particle" because nobody had the technology to find it and prove it was real?

Exactly. Whoever-it-was wanted to call his book, The Goddamn Particle but the publishers thought it might upset people.

You may find more answers in theology than in science. Science cannot study the soul. Science does not explain concepts in many fields including religion, law, philosophy, the arts etc.

For example, there is a clear theological explanation why God would choose not to make reproducible scientific experiments performed by nonbelievers based on bad theology a way to know about Him.

Christian theology explains that long ago, the angels clearly knew God existed, yet they chose to reject God. If you closely examine the belief system of many nonbelievers, then there is very little difference between the person who says that he / she does not believe in God, and the person who says that he / she has no opinion in the existence of God, but chooses to reject God anyway.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect that if God exists then He would insist that to know He exists, you must know Him. That can only come from seeking God and spending time with Him.

That does not mean that in the future we will not find a reproducible method to have evidence that God exists. If such experiments are performed, they will need to do a much better job of conforming to theology.

Originally Posted by dedo

You may find more answers in theology than in science. Science cannot study the soul. Science does not explain concepts in many fields including religion, law, philosophy, the arts etc.

Good start.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect that if God exists then He would insist that to know He exists, you must know Him.

So, the only way to know god is to ... know god. Well, I'm glad we have cleared that up.

That can only come from seeking God and spending time with Him.

Which order do you suggest I tackle this problem? It would seem logical to start with the most ancient gods and spend time with them, working my way up to the more modern ones (including FSM). How much time do I need to spend with each of them? Can I spend time with several in parallel? Or will the "jealous gods" insist that I put the others aside for some time? And how will the others feel about that? Will I have to start again with them, after getting to know the jealous ones?

It all seems so difficult.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dedo

You may find more answers in theology than in science. Science cannot study the soul. Science does not explain concepts in many fields including religion, law, philosophy, the arts etc.

Good start.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect that if God exists then He would insist that to know He exists, you must know Him.

So, the only way to know god is to ... know god. Well, I'm glad we have cleared that up.

That can only come from seeking God and spending time with Him.

Which order do you suggest I tackle this problem? It would seem logical to start with the most ancient gods and spend time with them, working my way up to the more modern ones (including FSM). How much time do I need to spend with each of them? Can I spend time with several in parallel? Or will the "jealous gods" insist that I put the others aside for some time? And how will the others feel about that? Will I have to start again with them, after getting to know the jealous ones?

It all seems so difficult.

It sounds to me as: "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it".

But which God? Hopefully one of the cool ones and not one of the ones with bi-polar anger management issues.

A "hearsay" anecdote: Years ago I attended a New Age meeting and one of the attendees told me about an interesting observation of his. He said he had seen an experiment in which a person had a lightweight wooden frame suspended over their head, and the frame started rotating by itself. (I won't even try introducing ether theory into this Thread.)

Can we stick to the topic please. Let's not have it move towards being yet another God vs no God thread.

I would respond that my Post about an undefined rotational energy (anecdotally only admittedly) above a subject's head would be relevant to the topic because of the possible connection with soul/spirit themes. This Thread is in the "Philosophy" section, and I thought it would be relevant.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

I would respond that my Post about an undefined rotational energy (anecdotally only admittedly) above a subject's head would be relevant to the topic because of the possible connection with soul/spirit themes. This Thread is in the "Philosophy" section, and I thought it would be relevant.

I wasn't talking to you specifically.


In any case, without any more information on this "experiment", it doesn't have much value. There is no shortage of all sorts of outlandish claims from the new age and similar crowds that are on very dubious ground indeed.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

A "hearsay" anecdote: Years ago I attended a New Age meeting and one of the attendees told me about an interesting observation of his. He said he had seen an experiment in which a person had a lightweight wooden frame suspended over their head, and the frame started rotating by itself.

How many alternative explanations can you think of? What efforts were made by the experimenters to eliminate these effects?

Hearsay, anecdote and a poorly described (and possibly poorly controlled) experiment ... there is zero value in any of that.

Originally Posted by Strange

How many alternative explanations can you think of?

Ooh! Sir, me Sir!
Maybe the frame stayed stationary while the guy's soul turned the earth under it!

as/re: What is difference between physical and spiritual world?

It just may be that dichotomous thought processes tend to create 'differences' where none should rightly exist.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by dedo

You may find more answers in theology than in science. Science cannot study the soul. Science does not explain concepts in many fields including religion, law, philosophy, the arts etc.

Good start.

Thus, it is completely reasonable to expect that if God exists then He would insist that to know He exists, you must know Him.

So, the only way to know god is to ... know god. Well, I'm glad we have cleared that up.

That can only come from seeking God and spending time with Him.

Which order do you suggest I tackle this problem? It would seem logical to start with the most ancient gods and spend time with them, working my way up to the more modern ones (including FSM). How much time do I need to spend with each of them? Can I spend time with several in parallel? Or will the "jealous gods" insist that I put the others aside for some time? And how will the others feel about that? Will I have to start again with them, after getting to know the jealous ones?

It all seems so difficult.

I would suggest that you start with the Christian God and His son, Jesus Christ. If you seek Him with humility, then you can conduct your own investigation re: whether you experience anything.

However, in regards to the OP's question, unconsciousness is not a journey into the spirit world. There are scientific theories of consciousness. One theory, called the integrated information theory of consciousness by Gulio Tononi can be downloaded, or his talks can be watched on You Tube. When you are asleep, information is not integrated, so you are not conscious. Unconscious parts of the brain, have information but lack the ability to integrate, so these parts are unconscious.

Theologically, we each have a spirit. When we die, then we lose our physical body and fully enter the spirit world. In the Christian religions, the spirit world will be Heaven, hell, or purgatory.

Thus, when we die, we will have a different type of consciousness according to Christian theology.

What about the half-dozen billion people out there who aren't Christian?

At first glance, Shinto seems a lot more spiritual than Christianity, then there's Prana of Hinduism and Qi of the Chinese spiritual beliefs.

Originally Posted by Daecon

What about the half-dozen billion people out there who aren't Christian?

At first glance, Shinto seems a lot more spiritual than Christianity, then there's Prana of Hinduism and Qi of the Chinese spiritual beliefs.

From my own spiritual journey, I have learned to be comfortable with living with the unknown, just as we don't know all the answers in science.

Thus, I cannot say why certain religions exist in the vast span of human history. All I know is what I experienced on my own journey.

For example, there was one spiritual question that I had a real problem with. "Coincidentally", I was in a religious book store. and I decided to try a new author in religious fiction. At the time I was not thinking of the particular issue and there was no indication on the cover of the author's work about the issue either. However, about half way through the book I realized that the author's story was an exact answer to the question that was bothering me.

That is an experience that is consistent with Christian theology. "Seek, and you shall find. Knock, and the door will be opened."

Scientific investigation has some similarity in that you are more likely to find an answer if you seek with an open mind.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

A "hearsay" anecdote: Years ago I attended a New Age meeting and one of the attendees told me about an interesting observation of his. He said he had seen an experiment in which a person had a lightweight wooden frame suspended over their head, and the frame started rotating by itself. (I won't even try introducing ether theory into this Thread.)

If true, then why is a spirit realm the answer? We understand thermodynamics pretty well. Couldn't we look into something testable first?

I still sense a case of someone searching for data which confirm their conclusion.

List of cognitive biases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No point in writing more than you have to.

Flick, As I think you'
re aware from past threads we have both followed, my main theoretic interest is ether theory. This line of study has been warned against by the mods, so I can't address the question you asked except to say that I feel certain most people would think first of "scientifically unknown spirit phenomenon" for an explanation for the frame near the head rotating. -Of course, electroencephalography and related researches have been pursued for a long time in science and brain-connected spatial energic phenomena have never been reported there.

Originally Posted by Michael Anteski

I feel certain most people would think first of "scientifically unknown spirit phenomenon" for an explanation for the frame near the head rotating.

Nah.
Surely most people would try to find the invisible elephant that's obviously having a laugh.

What drugs are you on?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

What words were confusing you?

In short the answer to your title question is:

We have evidence for the physical world. We have no credible evidence for the spiritual one--none whatsoever. In simpler terms the physical word is real, the spiritual one not.

There is no evidence for a soul.
Dreams are the product of the physical interactions within of our sleeping brains. And of course we can imagine unreal things, both while dreaming (watches my sleeping cat's feet flicking as if he's running) or while fully awake.

We have great interest in teaching students of science--learning what constitutes scientific evidence, logic, deductive and inductive reasoning are all part of learning the scientific method. Enjoy the ride and don't be afraid to ask questions or get discourages if rebuffed a few times--that to is part of learning.

We have evidence for the physical world. We have no credible evidence for the spiritual one--none whatsoever. In simpler terms the physical word is real, the spiritual one not.

I could say the opposite, the spiritual world is real the physical is not. The never ending discussion about what is real is back with us.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I could say the opposite, the spiritual world is real the physical is not.

Then you're wrong: as shown by the quote included in your post.
We have zero evidence of the soul.

The never ending discussion about what is real is back with us.

Only if you're completely f*cking clueless.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

I could say the opposite, the spiritual world is real the physical is not.

Then you're wrong: as shown by the quote included in your post.
We have zero evidence of the soul.

The never ending discussion about what is real is back with us.

Only if you're completely f*cking clueless.

Why are you resorting to obnoxious language, you are stating your point of view I accept it.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Why are you resorting to obnoxious language

Because you're raising a stupid non-question.
Define "real".
Explain how something that has NEVER been shown shown to exist is "real" when things that HAVE CONSISTENTLY been shown to exist are not.
re·al ¹ (rl, rl)adj.1. a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence:
By claiming the question arises in these circumstances you are completely and utterly denying the current accepted definition of "real".
And you you wonder why I resort to "obnoxious language".
It's not half as obnoxious as your ridiculous assertions.

you are stating your point of view I accept it.

So you're under the impression that:
A) We have evidence for the physical world.
B) We have no credible evidence for the spiritual one, and
C) There is no evidence for a soul.
are a point of view?

You deny that we have evidence of the real world?
You claim there is credible evidence for a spiritual world?
You claim there is actual evidence of the soul?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

Why are you resorting to obnoxious language

Because you're raising a stupid non-question.
Define "real".
Explain how something that has NEVER been shown shown to exist is "real" when things that HAVE CONSISTENTLY been shown to exist are not.
re·al ¹ (rl, rl)adj.1. a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence:
By claiming the question arises in these circumstances you are completely and utterly denying the current accepted definition of "real".
And you you wonder why I resort to "obnoxious language".
It's not half as obnoxious as your ridiculous assertions.

you are stating your point of view I accept it.

So you're under the impression that:
A) We have evidence for the physical world.
B) We have no credible evidence for the spiritual one, and
C) There is no evidence for a soul.
are a point of view?

You deny that we have evidence of the real world?
You claim there is credible evidence for a spiritual world?
You claim there is actual evidence of the soul?

I feel with my spirit, I touch with my senses. my soul I refer to as my conscience. I have a spiritual body, a physical body, and a mind body. I hope I am being clear enough.

If you want to go back and querry what is real, we can do so. Just off the top, I see reality the same way I see water, I cannot define it. Every thing is real and not real.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I feel with my spirit

Nonsense.

my soul I refer to as my conscience

Therefore soul = conscience.

I have a spiritual body, a physical body, and a mind body.

Unsupported bullshit.

If you want to go back and querry what is real

Real: see the definition in my previous post.

Every thing is real and not real.

Also bullshit.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I feel with my spirit, I touch with my senses. my soul I refer to as my conscience. I have a spiritual body, a physical body, and a mind body. I hope I am being clear enough.

If you want to go back and querry what is real, we can do so. Just off the top, I see reality the same way I see water, I cannot define it. Every thing is real and not real.

You're going to want to be careful with stuff like this or you'll be labeled as a crank. This post makes absolutely no sense.

I have very strong well considered opinions of this subject. These opinions are not beliefs.
For the discussion of the ( Real ) Physical with dimension and mass.
What proof of existence can you bring us of some other realm ? ( Spiritual )

The following is a observation and conclusion that I draw from my own life experiences..
~ That some people do never develop the ability to reason or think. That in spite of much education they have never questioned indoctrinated belief structures.. Seemingly believing what they know can not be true. Your dream experiences are not reality.
I will watch and wait over on the margin. >>>> for a thoughtful response.. Thoughtful might be a whole new area for some.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

I feel with my spirit, I touch with my senses. my soul I refer to as my conscience. I have a spiritual body, a physical body, and a mind body. I hope I am being clear enough.

If you want to go back and querry what is real, we can do so. Just off the top, I see reality the same way I see water, I cannot define it. Every thing is real and not real.

You're going to want to be careful with stuff like this or you'll be labeled as a crank. This post makes absolutely no sense.

I am not discussing this point that is how I have created myself. That is how I understand, and know myself. Labeling me a crank is not going to change who I am. I have to make sense out of me, I do not have a clue who you think you are.

Only one is worth discussing?

Originally Posted by Stargate

that is how I have created myself

Which begs the question: why on Earth would anyone want to "create" themselves as a credulous fool?

I have to make sense out of me

By failing to be sensible.
Well done.

Originally Posted by astromark

I have very strong well considered opinions of this subject. These opinions are not beliefs.
For the discussion of the ( Real ) Physical with dimension and mass.
What proof of existence can you bring us of some other realm ? ( Spiritual )

The following is a observation and conclusion that I draw from my own life experiences..
~ That some people do never develop the ability to reason or think. That in spite of much education they have never questioned indoctrinated belief structures.. Seemingly believing what they know can not be true. Your dream experiences are not reality.
I will watch and wait over on the margin. >>>> for a thoughtful response.. Thoughtful might be a whole new area for some.

I am not religious or let me say overly religious, I create the world I like to live in around me, dictated by my interpretations. I understand my presents in this physical, spiritual form. I do not believe in a god that dictates anything good or bad in my ear. I treat everyone how I would like to be treated. There is naturally more to it than, but it's enough for now.

I will watch and wait over on the margin. >>>> for a thoughtful response.. Thoughtful might be a whole new area for some.

So is it a new idea for you?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

I have very strong well considered opinions of this subject. These opinions are not beliefs.
For the discussion of the ( Real ) Physical with dimension and mass.
What proof of existence can you bring us of some other realm ? ( Spiritual )

I am not religious or let me say overly religious, I create the world I like to live in around me, dictated by my interpretations. I understand my presents in this physical, spiritual form. I do not believe in a god that dictates anything good or bad in my ear. I treat everyone how I would like to be treated. There is naturally more to it than, but it's enough for now.
So is it a new idea for you?

~ I asked you a question. I have little regard for what you might believe or not.
Explain what you know is a spiritual form. Would this spirit form or soul stand to be tested as real ? Does it have any dimension ? any mass? Any reality ? Do you have any proof of such ?
..and as for your question. No. I have a need for the science of understanding and a quest for knowledge that is science based.

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

I have very strong well considered opinions of this subject. These opinions are not beliefs.
For the discussion of the ( Real ) Physical with dimension and mass.
What proof of existence can you bring us of some other realm ? ( Spiritual )

I am not religious or let me say overly religious, I create the world I like to live in around me, dictated by my interpretations. I understand my presents in this physical, spiritual form. I do not believe in a god that dictates anything good or bad in my ear. I treat everyone how I would like to be treated. There is naturally more to it than, but it's enough for now.
So is it a new idea for you?

~ I asked you a question. I have little regard for what you might believe or not.
Explain what you know is a spiritual form. Would this spirit form or soul stand to be tested as real ? Does it have any dimension ? any mass? Any reality ? Do you have any proof of such ?
..and as for your question. No. I have a need for the science of understanding and a quest for knowledge that is science based.

Science has not reached there yet to prove it, but I have a spirit. I am hoping there are lots of things that science cannot prove as yet, but are still there.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Science has not reached there yet to prove it, but I have a spirit.

Oh for f*ck's sake are you really this ignorant?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

I have very strong well considered opinions of this subject. These opinions are not beliefs.
For the discussion of the ( Real ) Physical with dimension and mass.
What proof of existence can you bring us of some other realm ? ( Spiritual )

I am not religious or let me say overly religious, I create the world I like to live in around me, dictated by my interpretations. I understand my presents in this physical, spiritual form. I do not believe in a god that dictates anything good or bad in my ear. I treat everyone how I would like to be treated. There is naturally more to it than, but it's enough for now.
So is it a new idea for you?

~ I asked you a question. I have little regard for what you might believe or not.
Explain what you know is a spiritual form. Would this spirit form or soul stand to be tested as real ? Does it have any dimension ? any mass? Any reality ? Do you have any proof of such ?
..and as for your question. No. I have a need for the science of understanding and a quest for knowledge that is science based.

Science has not reached there yet to prove it, but I have a spirit. I am hoping there are lots of things that science cannot prove as yet, but are still there.

There are for sure many things science has not yet figured out yet, but you are making a mistake by lumping "spirit" in there.

The reason is that there is no good indication that there even is such a thing as spirit. In fact, it goes against some very basic and very well researched aspects of physics. The question you have to ask yourself, is how do you know there is such a thing as a "spirit"? Then ask yourself why the scientific method is such a powerful method to learn about our world and if the way you have determined that you have a spirit is really a good way to go about determining the truth value of things.

Do you understand what the scientific method is and why it is so useful?

I believe you may be referring to either the philosophical concept of Anima or perhaps Vitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia?

Either way, while these things are pretty nifty ideas, there's no actual scientific basis to account for their possible existence and so it's inappropriate to use these concepts in scientific discussion.

I really liked the movie "Ghost". It was lovely. Unreality is often delightful.

Stargate; You only think you have a soul. That thought is a construct of your mind.
If you can not understand this very simple and obvious fact of known science you are naive and arguable in that you accept that as true which has no scientific fact to it. You say they ( science ) are not there yet.. I would plead with you that in fact the opposite is found to be true.

Originally Posted by astromark

Stargate; You only think you have a soul. That thought is a construct of your mind.
If you can not understand this very simple and obvious fact of known science you are naive and arguable in that you accept that as true which has no scientific fact to it. You say they ( science ) are not there yet.. I would plead with you that in fact the opposite is found to be true.

I cannot see anyone telling me scientist or layman that I think I have a soul and it’s the construct of my mind. Everything is the construct of my mind. I could say the same thing about your idea of being a scientist; it’s only a construct of your mind. Most things that are logged in my mind I have learnt from people like you telling me it is so. I go to school they tell me the earth is flat, only to later tell me no its round. Some other religious ones tell me there is a god living inside of me so I believe that. When I tell you I have found out how I am made up for myself, you try to tell me it is a figment of my imagination. Now you are going to tell me about the scientific method. Have you ever heard the term subjective science? What good is science at all if it cannot be used subjectively? Science is in fact minutes old, I have been here for ever made out of the very substance that makes the universe. You know very little about whom you are, less more who I am. I would urge you to wake up and understand there is very little you know about anything. I have come to that realization a long time ago, and believe me life is what you make it, and make of it.


I

Too stupid to stay off the ignore list.
I should have done it months ago.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I go to school they tell me the earth is flat

Sounds like you might need to find a better school.

What good is science at all if it cannot be used subjectively?

The whole point of science is to get away from the subjective.

I have been here for ever

That is a pretty serious delusion.

understand there is very little you know about anything. I have come to that realization a long time ago

It was immediately obvious to everyone else that you know little about anything.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how some people end up on the science​ forum.

Personally, I see a very strong parallel between the physical-versus-spiritual and the obvious-versus-obscure, where preconceived notions and emotions don't get in the way.

I drive around cloverleafs. If I maintain my place in traffic, I win. If I relent and let someone slip in front of me, I lose (about 20 to 50 feet or more). It's physical; it's obvious. Yet, we all probably relent at least some of the time.

Why be "nice" or "polite" to other people when it makes us lose? Because I would want someone to let me into traffic if I was in their place? Because it's the "right" thing to do? Does anyone really think that what-goes-around-comes-around? Or karma? The obvious is that by relenting in a cloverleaf, I lose. The obscure is that by relenting in a cloverleaf, I somehow help "make the world a better place". Oh, pleeease! Talk about grandiose delusions. Do you want a Congressional Medal or a Nobel Prize for doing that? When you find a cure for malaria, or eliminate starvation, or deactivate nuclear weapons worldwide, then come back and tell me about how you made the world a better place. But don't tell me that relenting in a cloverleaf is "nice" or "good" or "the right thing to do", and it makes the world a better place — because that is absolutely spiritual. [/sarcasm]

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

Stargate; You only think you have a soul. That thought is a construct of your mind.
If you can not understand this very simple and obvious fact of known science you are naive and arguable in that you accept that as true which has no scientific fact to it. You say they ( science ) are not there yet.. I would plead with you that in fact the opposite is found to be true.

I cannot see anyone telling me scientist or layman that I think I have a soul and it’s the construct of my mind. Everything is the construct of my mind. I could say the same thing about your idea of being a scientist; it’s only a construct of your mind. Most things that are logged in my mind I have learnt from people like you telling me it is so. I go to school they tell me the earth is flat, only to later tell me no its round. Some other religious ones tell me there is a god living inside of me so I believe that. When I tell you I have found out how I am made up for myself, you try to tell me it is a figment of my imagination. Now you are going to tell me about the scientific method. Have you ever heard the term subjective science? What good is science at all if it cannot be used subjectively? Science is in fact minutes old, I have been here for ever made out of the very substance that makes the universe. You know very little about whom you are, less more who I am. I would urge you to wake up and understand there is very little you know about anything. I have come to that realization a long time ago, and believe me life is what you make it, and make of it.


I

~ I obviously upset you. I draw that conclusion by the fact that, that ranting quoted above ^ is some sort of response.. You used the words 'subjective science.' That is a contradiction. If something is of the mind it is not science. That a notion or theory can be formed from the mind and is able to be tested is science. For all things of the spiritual realm I see no proof of fact by scientific test. That you might find a enjoyment from accepting as true that which the scientific community does not. Is a good thing for you. That I do not see as real any spiritual or spirit..and would suggest that it is mostly unscientific to make true that which can not be. That you are not being supported is in some way showing you that your false belief structures are fine as long as you keep them to your self..
Very little is to be gained by coming into a science and astronomy forum and talking of spirits...

Subjective means things change from person to person. Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

Originally Posted by Daecon

Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

ahem
I do not mean to nitpick, but science is evolving one hell of a lot faster than are we.
Yesterday's "objective fact" becomes todays nonsense -----------but not all and not all of the time.
Which makes a supposed objective observation subject to the guesswork of determining a concept of the direction of scientific evolution.

In the long run, the quest for objective truths is to serve man. So we remain very much in the equation.

Does drawing lines between stars and galaxies and naming them alter them in any way? No, but considering us in the equation the practice serves as a suitable mnemonic.
Wherein, the subjective is in service to the objective in service to man.

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

Stargate; You only think you have a soul. That thought is a construct of your mind.
If you can not understand this very simple and obvious fact of known science you are naive and arguable in that you accept that as true which has no scientific fact to it. You say they ( science ) are not there yet.. I would plead with you that in fact the opposite is found to be true.

I cannot see anyone telling me scientist or layman that I think I have a soul and it’s the construct of my mind. Everything is the construct of my mind. I could say the same thing about your idea of being a scientist; it’s only a construct of your mind. Most things that are logged in my mind I have learnt from people like you telling me it is so. I go to school they tell me the earth is flat, only to later tell me no its round. Some other religious ones tell me there is a god living inside of me so I believe that. When I tell you I have found out how I am made up for myself, you try to tell me it is a figment of my imagination. Now you are going to tell me about the scientific method. Have you ever heard the term subjective science? What good is science at all if it cannot be used subjectively? Science is in fact minutes old, I have been here for ever made out of the very substance that makes the universe. You know very little about whom you are, less more who I am. I would urge you to wake up and understand there is very little you know about anything. I have come to that realization a long time ago, and believe me life is what you make it, and make of it.


I

~ I obviously upset you. I draw that conclusion by the fact that, that ranting quoted above ^ is some sort of response.. You used the words 'subjective science.' That is a contradiction. If something is of the mind it is not science. That a notion or theory can be formed from the mind and is able to be tested is science. For all things of the spiritual realm I see no proof of fact by scientific test. That you might find a enjoyment from accepting as true that which the scientific community does not. Is a good thing for you. That I do not see as real any spiritual or spirit..and would suggest that it is mostly unscientific to make true that which can not be. That you are not being supported is in some way showing you that your false belief structures are fine as long as you keep them to your self..
Very little is to be gained by coming into a science and astronomy forum and talking of spirits...

You seem to have missed what the thread was all about. There are so many things that science has not proven but it holds on to those parts it claims to know. You claim to be a scientist, but you know nothing of spirit. In other words, we are all making it up as we go along.

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Daecon

Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

ahem
I do not mean to nitpick, but science is evolving one hell of a lot faster than are we.
Yesterday's "objective fact" becomes todays nonsense -----------but not all and not all of the time.
Which makes a supposed objective observation subject to the guesswork of determining a concept of the direction of scientific evolution.

In the long run, the quest for objective truths is to serve man. So we remain very much in the equation.

Does drawing lines between stars and galaxies and naming them alter them in any way? No, but considering us in the equation the practice serves as a suitable mnemonic.
Wherein, the subjective is in service to the objective in service to man.

We evaluate what we sense through our human system, the value starts where I start.

Wherein, the subjective is in service to the objective in service to man.[/

This has to be key.

Originally Posted by Daecon

Subjective means things change from person to person. Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

So, I take it you don't much agree with the term 'social science'?

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Daecon

Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

ahem
I do not mean to nitpick, but science is evolving one hell of a lot faster than are we.
Yesterday's "objective fact" becomes todays nonsense -----------but not all and not all of the time.
Which makes a supposed objective observation subject to the guesswork of determining a concept of the direction of scientific evolution.

In the long run, the quest for objective truths is to serve man. So we remain very much in the equation.

Does drawing lines between stars and galaxies and naming them alter them in any way? No, but considering us in the equation the practice serves as a suitable mnemonic.
Wherein, the subjective is in service to the objective in service to man.

An objective approach is much more likely to yield accurate results than a subjective one. I disagree with the term 'objective fact' because I don't think anything of such nature exists, at least not within the method of induction [that is based on mere probability].

Originally Posted by Stargate

You seem to have missed what the thread was all about. There are so many things that science has not proven but it holds on to those parts it claims to know.

Science does not prove anything. If you want proof, it might be recommendable to visit the Mathematics sub-forum.
And what do you mean with "it holds on to those parts it claims to know"?

Originally Posted by Stargate

You claim to be a scientist, but you know nothing of spirit. In other words, we are all making it up as we go along.

Given the fact that assertions concerning the existence of an entity that is not a part of the physical world were not accompanied with clear definitions or evidences (which are required if acceptance by other members is desired), I agree that "we are all making it up".

Originally Posted by sir ir r aj

I request you , senior members, specially Strange, Lynx_Fox, pavlos, Cogito, Kalster and others to consider students of science who come here for learning.

I am a senior member? Do I look that old?
(pun intended)

Originally Posted by Stargate

You claim to be a scientist, but you know nothing of spirit.

Accidentally caught sight of the troll's post.
This has to class as one the year's best tautological statements.
"Spirit" has f*ck all to do with science.

Oh, and no one knows anything about "spirit".

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

You claim to be a scientist, but you know nothing of spirit.

Accidentally caught sight of the troll's post.
This has to class as one the year's best tautological statements.
"Spirit" has f*ck all to do with science.

Oh, and no one knows anything about "spirit".

Unless you are a chemist:

"The term spirit refers to a distilled beverage that contains no added sugar and has at least 20% alcohol by volume (ABV). Popular spirits include brandy, (...), gin, rum, tequila, vodka, and whisky."

(cf. Distilled beverage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Daecon

Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

ahem
I do not mean to nitpick, but science is evolving one hell of a lot faster than are we.
Yesterday's "objective fact" becomes todays nonsense -----------but not all and not all of the time.
Which makes a supposed objective observation subject to the guesswork of determining a concept of the direction of scientific evolution.

But then wouldn't it just stop being "science" if it's shown to no longer be objective?

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Daecon

Subjective means things change from person to person. Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

So, I take it you don't much agree with the term 'social science'?

Ah, it's just applied psychology, right? *nudge nudge*

Originally Posted by Daecon

Originally Posted by sculptor

Originally Posted by Daecon

Science deals with objective facts that will always be the same for anyone and everyone.

ahem
I do not mean to nitpick, but science is evolving one hell of a lot faster than are we.
Yesterday's "objective fact" becomes todays nonsense -----------but not all and not all of the time.
Which makes a supposed objective observation subject to the guesswork of determining a concept of the direction of scientific evolution.

But then wouldn't it just stop being "science" if it's shown to no longer be objective?

No.
Every single bit of science stands on it's own, "science is just a meta-category and tool for examining our knowledge base .
Science can best be described as a series of ever improving best guesses. Nothing is fixed in time and space, except change.

When scientists find the null hypothesis, this often leads to refining our body of knowledge.
"successive approximations toward a goal"

Rather than answers, it's just better questions

I am a "free spirit".

Just as 'babe' is a free spirit so to can I have a spirited argument. On one hand we have a freedom to think and act as we determine.. As do I hold a forthright view. Yet I will argue that the existence of the human spirit is a concept of drive.
The human mind does store and recall. Constantly sifting through things of relevance and history.. judging, guessing, calculating, and remembering lessons learned.. That each culture does judge things from a different view.. My understanding is not as 'Stargate's'. Just the word salad we use sets us on a collision course.. and I note my question goes unanswered still.

'What is the difference 'spiritual world', and 'physical world'. In the Physical world things are of substance and dimension.. I can not find proof that a spiritual realm is even real.

Originally Posted by astromark

Just as 'babe' is a free spirit so to can I have a spirited argument. On one hand we have a freedom to think and act as we determine.. As do I hold a forthright view. Yet I will argue that the existence of the human spirit is a concept of drive.
The human mind does store and recall. Constantly sifting through things of relevance and history.. judging, guessing, calculating, and remembering lessons learned.. That each culture does judge things from a different view.. My understanding is not as 'Stargate's'. Just the word salad we use sets us on a collision course.. and I note my question goes unanswered still.

'What is the difference 'spiritual world', and 'physical world'. In the Physical world things are of substance and dimension.. I can not find proof that a spiritual realm is even real.

The answer might be you are too scientific to feel, all you can do is touch. Sometimes we have too many words and cannot imagine it can be devastating if you have no spirit. I am not saying you are not entitled to reject spirit, but I get scared of you when you think you can tell people they are not experiencing what they tell you. Ok, you cannot prove so many things that are a part of your life, are you willing to say they do not exist? I am not having the same problem as you are having, I have a mind for science and a mind for spirit, and I am not in conflict with myself. Your approach is one sided to me, I would think a scientific person would be especially open minded knowing there are so many possibilities.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I have a mind for science

You have consistently demonstrated that this is actually not the case.

and a mind for spirit

Since "spirit" has not been shown to exist then your (again unsupported) claim is meaningless.

I would think a scientific person would be especially open minded knowing there are so many possibilities.

The basic problem is that you don't think.

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Originally Posted by Stargate

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Assumption on your part.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Assumption on your part.

I think this article: Open mind - RationalWiki explains it quite nicely.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Anything outside the realm of reality is absurd.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Anything outside the realm of reality is absurd.

Are you real or absurd?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Anything outside the realm of reality is absurd.

Are you real or absurd?

Within our realm of understanding, I am real.

If you're going to suggest that I may be absurd because I am, in fact, part of a created reality and that I don't really exist, I would posit that your notion is absurd.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Anything outside the realm of reality is absurd.

Are you real or absurd?

Within our realm of understanding, I am real.

If you're going to suggest that I may be absurd because I am, in fact, part of a created reality and that I don't really exist, I would posit that your notion is absurd.

Within our realm of understanding, I am real.

Whose understanding? Do you have a way to prove that you are real?

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

So you could measure your mind and that would make you real? Maybe I am not understanding, you are made of empty atoms and you say you are real, what I am observing of you is nothing.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Being open to possibilities should not be confused with being susceptible to absurd notions.

How would you know it’s absurd if your mind is closed to any idea outside of your perimeter?

Anything outside the realm of reality is absurd.

Are you real or absurd?

Within our realm of understanding, I am real.

If you're going to suggest that I may be absurd because I am, in fact, part of a created reality and that I don't really exist, I would posit that your notion is absurd.

Within our realm of understanding, I am real.

Whose understanding? Do you have a way to prove that you are real?

If he is not real, then with whom are you arguing?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by astromark

Just as 'babe' is a free spirit so to can I have a spirited argument. On one hand we have a freedom to think and act as we determine.. As do I hold a forthright view. Yet I will argue that the existence of the human spirit is a concept of drive.
The human mind does store and recall. Constantly sifting through things of relevance and history.. judging, guessing, calculating, and remembering lessons learned.. That each culture does judge things from a different view.. My understanding is not as 'Stargate's'. Just the word salad we use sets us on a collision course.. and I note my question goes unanswered still.

'What is the difference 'spiritual world', and 'physical world'. In the Physical world things are of substance and dimension.. I can not find proof that a spiritual realm is even real.

The answer might be you are too scientific to feel, all you can do is touch. Sometimes we have too many words and cannot imagine it can be devastating if you have no spirit. I am not saying you are not entitled to reject spirit, but I get scared of you when you think you can tell people they are not experiencing what they tell you. Ok, you cannot prove so many things that are a part of your life, are you willing to say they do not exist? I am not having the same problem as you are having, I have a mind for science and a mind for spirit, and I am not in conflict with myself. Your approach is one sided to me, I would think a scientific person would be especially open minded knowing there are so many possibilities.

~ " This is a major step forward.." You have backed away from being so sure of your own belief structures and conceded that a other view might be tolerated.. If you can be so open, so can I. In fact it is we that are open minded and you that has shown a acceptance of things unproven.. have a look at your own view. Can you show of what a soul might be. A sense of self does not answer your quest. Your mind is a action of your brain. We can measure brain activity and have mapped the electro-magnetic signal activity of a living brain.. and that after brain death no such activity is present.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

So you could measure your mind and that would make you real? Maybe I am not understanding, you are made of empty atoms and you say you are real, what I am observing of you is nothing.

Then your viewpoint is absurd.

I don't know if you're trying to be cute with your philosophical approach or if you genuinely think you live in a realm of nothingness, but it doesn't demonstrate anything profound.

"Empty atoms" is meaningless. "Measure your mind" is also meaningless unless you're referring to the 3 pounds of gelatin in my head that some people mistake for a brain.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

So you could measure your mind and that would make you real? Maybe I am not understanding, you are made of empty atoms and you say you are real, what I am observing of you is nothing.

~ That's right, . 'You are not understanding'.. but do not take it as so personal. It's not. We and I are simply attempting to guide you to the OPEN door. The mind of a science based scholar remains open.. Always.. New information would be accepted as found. It has not shown up.. The mind is not a tangible object that can be taken as real.. It remains as ' The action of the brain.' thought process is a action not a object. I would be very surprised if you could just turn off your indoctrinated belief structures. That would be difficult as a lifetime of doctrines is hard to just turn off.. The more you learn of this subject, the easy'er that might become..

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

So you could measure your mind and that would make you real? Maybe I am not understanding, you are made of empty atoms and you say you are real, what I am observing of you is nothing.

Then your viewpoint is absurd.

I don't know if you're trying to be cute with your philosophical approach or if you genuinely think you live in a realm of nothingness, but it doesn't demonstrate anything profound.

"Empty atoms" is meaningless. "Measure your mind" is also meaningless unless you're referring to the 3 pounds of gelatin in my head that some people mistake for a brain.

I do not know you tell me, I am not the scientist with no spirit. It sounds as if you are telling me that if I have a spirit I cannot be a scientist because scientists don't have spirits. I call that crap and nonsense.

What I am saying is that if you are a scientist who accepts something which exists outside the realm of reality, I would find the rest of your work dubious.

You have no evidence for a spirit, yet you are determined you have one. Therefore, you must logically accept as fact all things for which there is no evidence. Otherwise, you are being doubly dishonest by cherry-picking your fantasies. At what point does that strike you as childish and absurd?

Originally Posted by astromark

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Yes. I can be observed, measured, even replicated.

Can you do that with a so-called spirit?

So you could measure your mind and that would make you real? Maybe I am not understanding, you are made of empty atoms and you say you are real, what I am observing of you is nothing.

~ That's right, . 'You are not understanding'.. but do not take it as so personal. It's not. We and I are simply attempting to guide you to the OPEN door. The mind of a science based scholar remains open.. Always.. New information would be accepted as found. It has not shown up.. The mind is not a tangible object that can be taken as real.. It remains as ' The action of the brain.' thought process is a action not a object. I would be very surprised if you could just turn off your indoctrinated belief structures. That would be difficult as a lifetime of doctrines is hard to just turn off.. The more you learn of this subject, the easy'er that might become..

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

What I am saying is that if you are a scientist who accepts something which exists outside the realm of reality, I would find the rest of your work dubious.

You have no evidence for a spirit, yet you are determined you have one. Therefore, you must logically accept as fact all things for which there is no evidence. Otherwise, you are being doubly dishonest by cherry-picking your fantasies. At what point does that strike you as childish and absurd?

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

If he is not proven to be real, then to whom are you speaking?
Have you overlooked my question in post #82?

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

If he is not proven to be real, then to whom are you speaking?
Have you overlooked my question in post #82?

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Science cannot prove many things and yet it proves many things in time, or with time. Science is a part of everything. There are something science will never prove. So I am reversing your satement, argumentum ad ignorantium.

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself?

This assumption (again) of yours is not only stupid, and not only offensive but is, yet again evidence of close mindedness on YOUR part.
Simply because someone disagrees with you (and does so by pointing that - and how - you are ignoring the methods by which science operates) is not "indoctrinated".
The fact you have to resort to inane and unsupported accusations of this sort shows just what shaky ground you're on.

I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

This is utter bollocks.
"Real scientists" do not accept things for which there is no evidence.

Originally Posted by Stargate

I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit

Of course not: your entire "argument" is predicated on gullibility, credulity and lack of evidence.

and you have not proven to me that you are real.

And compounded by a wilful (and painful to any rational reader) ignorance.

I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

And in maintaining that you once again betray your total and utter cluelessness of what science is and how it works.
There is, and can NEVER be, "room in science" for things which have no evidence.

In short: you're a complete f*ckwit.

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

If he is not proven to be real, then to whom are you speaking?
Have you overlooked my question in post #82?

I am speaking to a figment of my imagination. Lol

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Science cannot prove many things and yet it proves many things in time, or with time. Science is a part of everything. There are something science will never prove. So I am reversing your satement, argumentum ad ignorantium.

Again, science does not prove anything, so you have to give some examples which demonstrate that "it proves many things in time, or with time".

Furthermore, I am not impressed by your reversal.
You stated:

Originally Posted by Stargate

And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist.

If one cannot prove that X does not exist, then that does not imply that X exists.
Yet, that is exactly what you claim and that is where the ad ignorantium is located.

Again, unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

If he is not proven to be real, then to whom are you speaking?
Have you overlooked my question in post #82?

I am speaking to a figment of my imagination. Lol

oh lord it sounds like you're a dogmatic idealist (immaterialist) giving lectures to scientists on evidence and not even being familiar with the justifications of your belief (George Berkeley)

Originally Posted by Stargate

you have not proven to me that you are real.

This may very well become my new signature...

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

you have not proven to me that you are real.

This may very well become my new signature...

I think the OP is supporting what's called immaterialism or what some call subjective idealism but has no idea how to justify it as they has never studied philosophy.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

you have not proven to me that you are real.

This may very well become my new signature...

I think the OP is supporting what's called immaterialism or what some call subjective idealism but has no idea how to justify it as they has never studied philosophy.

So basically, he heard something he liked an that has become the infallible truth to him?

Great.

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by Cogito Ergo Sum

Originally Posted by Stargate

have you ever tried turning of your indoctrinated belief of yourself? I have gone down the garden path with so many of you spiritless scientist, telling me all sorts of conjured up imaginary ideas. You make the real scientists look silly. And yes, I know many scientists who do not give credence to spirit, but they leave a space for everyone to exist since they cannot prove that spirit does not exist. There does not have to be a disconnect, but ego wants to be the supreme knowledge on all things in the universe. You are not guiding me to an open door, you are guiding me to an open pit, I am just not going to follow.

Science cannot prove that something does not exist.
Your argument boils down to an argumentum ad ignorantium.

Unless you are going to define "spirit" instead of merely asserting its existence, one cannot achieve a scientific discussion about this concept.

Originally Posted by Stargate

The horse is dead, I am not trying to prove to you I have a spirit, and you have not proven to me that you are real. I will maintain that science has room for both ideas.

If he is not proven to be real, then to whom are you speaking?
Have you overlooked my question in post #82?

I am speaking to a figment of my imagination. Lol

oh lord it sounds like you're a dogmatic idealist (immaterialist) giving lectures to scientists on evidence and not even being familiar with the justifications of your belief (George Berkeley)

Last try, it seems rigor mortis is stepping in. I am not trying to prove spirit to you or any one, I have a spirit, and it does not stop me from learning and practising science. I think there is a space for every notion, idea, claim, and ignorace in the universe. PERIOD.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Trivium

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by Stargate

you have not proven to me that you are real.

This may very well become my new signature...

I think the OP is supporting what's called immaterialism or what some call subjective idealism but has no idea how to justify it as they has never studied philosophy.

So basically, he heard something he liked an that has become the infallible truth to him?

Great.

Just the same as what you heard from your teacher and now it has become your truth. I hope you did not believe them when they told you the earth was flat. You seem to have believed them when they told you you had no spirit, becuse now you have lost your feelings.