How do you disprove physics?

You disprove physics with better physics

 

How do you use religion to disprove physics---or all of science for that matter?

Easy---you just have to preach it from a pulpit to the Religious Right, if they believe it, then the Republican Party will adopt it as undeniable proof. Then such modern day prophets as Michelle Bachmann will go out across the land and spread the truth... And as it is written in the Ultra-sacred, and extremely confidential Holy Book of the United States of America: "And lo it shall come to pass that the honorable God-Loving Republicans will pass into the law of the land, such measures that will assure God's glory and a Christian Nation (even greater than that of President Diem and Madame Nhu (but alas they were only Catholic and not true Christians)). And lo they shall smite the Godless Democrats, and it shall come to pass that even their children shall bear the curse of their parents, for seven generations, and so it shall be also for their leader, who carries the mark of Cain, and all his descendants."

Once the laws are in place, then such Anti-science truths will become true, and science shall finally be defeated. Evolution, for example, has already been proven to be false and completely wrong---not by Empirical facts mind you----but by laws, and Texans, and school books, and Fox News, and you know---print. In other words, Creationism is truth by all the things that matter.

 

I apologize if anyone else joked along the same lines---I did not read through the thread before responding, and I have only glanced over a few things.

Exactly! Though scientists as well-----can become as equally dogmatic in their materialist views and beliefs.

 

It really is sad that the lowest intelligence, rudimentary comprehension, lowest common denominator types are the loudest mouths when it comes to these topics..on both sides of the fence. (not meaning you Ace, but rather where/how you arrived at your opinions concerning faith)
All that leads to asinine concepts, incomplete understandings and overt negativity to both groups from the opposition, as illustrated in the OP.


@ Ace, your premise is faulty because, as with so many others, it's foundational understanding of what entails religious faith is not completely accurate, but rather what it has been relegated to by those low IQ loudmouths, again, from both camps.


and why the fuck is it nobody can ask these type of questions without interjecting their own ignorance, bias and negativity?


frankly, regardless of what anyone thinks or believes, if you have not died, you haven't got a fucking clue as to the truth or falsehood of religious belief.
Plain and simple and if you declare otherwise, you are a fooling yourself.

Me, I'm very comfortable with declaring "I don't fucking know"

 

also bear in mind that science deals with probabilities, not absolutes.

it is the frequency of occurrence that takes a probability into the realm of "law", but it is still based on the probability of this or that happening.

who knows, one day the apple might float away.

 

And the mind deals in abstractions. A good way to disprove psychics through physics then is to not consider.

 

Simply indicative to me. I'm not too emotional about it.

What death is the only answer?

Certainly more comfortable than fighting about it. I would rather be happy than right and would rather be righted if I am wrong. Reserving judgement does not a judgement make nor does it call for any dues.

 

agree dope! saying death is the only answer is a false dilemma.

 

It might not be an answer at all. I'm betting that there is no afterlife, and if I'm right, I'll never know it. The dilemma comes in expecting certainty in outcomes and being unwilling to accept anything less. It could be that our lives are governed by capricious spirits who deceive us at every turn, or that we are living in a matrix-like virtual reality program manned by aliens, robots, angels, demons, whatever. How would we know for sure? Obviously we can't. So we have to make bets on what seems plausible, which of course is colored by any number of influences on my perceptions. I tend to favor inferences based on logic, evidence, the scientific method, and the consensus of specialists. Each one of those sources could be, and have been challenged. The conspiracy theorists might be right, but I'm betting on the contrary, and so far I seem to be getting along well enough.

 

At any rate, if you experience a continuation of experience after your body is finished, calling that experience the afterlife is illogical.

 

But it seems odd to me that spirits, angels, demons, or any other such entity, which obviously displays such phenomena as consciousness could exist in a non-physical form, and that we in turn---beings that are also capable of experiencing ecstatic moments of transcendental reality (not to mention ecstatic moments where we can communicate with such beings), would not be able to continue in a non-physical form after the death of our physical body.

I have experienced non-physical conscious forces many times since I began walking the Red Road---including those of others who have gone on before. These things tell me that there is an after-life. I guess though that it is something that has to be experienced to know. I wouldn't expect anyone to believe what I have to say.

 

lol i never thought of that.

dont know what that red road is, but curious what you experienced? (is red doad a code word for dmt lol?) is everyones normal everyday conciousness non-physical?

if its not matter, is it energy?

 

Xenos paradox of motion.

 

My own experiences have shown me that I can see that matter cannot be separate from spirit, but I am not sure about whether or not spirit can be separate from matter----I suppose it could be energy in some manner, and in other posts in other threads, I have suggested it being similar to light...

 

The Red Road is a term for Native American spirituality. I practice with a predominantly Lakota (Sioux) group of people. There are a few Cheyenne, Dine and some other tribes represented. I am not Native myself, but we all have indigenous ancestors. I have spent time with indigenous people in various parts of the world. What started me on the Red Road was an experiencing the miraculous healing of my stepdaughter in the Philippines. This happened at a very agnostic point in my life after a life time of searching for meaning and proof.

That happened back in the early 90's, but it wasn't until about 1999 or so that I started really exploring the Native ways, and the past 10 or 12 years in particular have been filled with all kinds of crazy stuff that, a few years earlier I would have never believed. Today I live in two different realities---the normal world of everyday life, and the supernatural world of Native ceremony. i have shared a few of the experiences in many different threads on this site----but I can share some if you would like to hear...

 

Is it stupid to suggest we find what we look for?

 

You are exactly right----but in this case I had given up the search for proof and meaning years earlier----hence I was very agnostic.

I forgot to answer IMjustfishin's other question-----yes, consciousness is most definitely a non-physical thing I believe. But what I meant in my comment was non-physical forces that display consciousness.

 

Is it stupid to suggest that what we find is only there because we looked for it?