|>> || 1593820930231.jpg -(244635B / 238.90KB, 1654x2339) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. >>903964 |
>"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."I am simply pointing out that You are the one claiming that one can gather all the carbon atoms into the palm of one's hand.
Your skepticism is already inconsistent with the scientific method. By expressing your belief in nonbelief, you are declaring “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” In science we don’t do that, we instead say, “Okay, here's a hypothesis based off of initial observations", and in this matter the initial observations of people's spiritual experiences are the evidence for or against that hypothesis. The scientist would say, "look, I have no evidence for Spirit or any kind of mechanism that provides for giving life and consciousness". But on the other hand, a scientist would acknowledge no right to make a final statement about something he or she doesn’t know about, saying "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Seeking a certain framework for 'evidence' which supports your position and which seeks to discredit scores of already available evidence in the form of millions of people's reports of spiritual and mystical experiences and their dealings with metaphysical reality is showing that you truly do not believe in science, merely bias. You only believe in being right and stroking your ego.
>Well, I don't believe in spiritsIt is not necessary for you to believe in something in order for it to exist. Viruses still exist even if you don't believe in vaccines. Gravity still exists even if you believe the Earth is flat. Life still exists even if you only identify yourself with nonliving matter.
>but this statement implies that the spiritual world and the physical world we live in are completely separate and unable to interact with each other in any way.Esoteric philosophy has found that the physical world is a shadow of the etheric world, which is a shadow of the astral, and so forth. These things have been studied for centuries, but you would never consider that people have given serious thought and exploration to this subject because it doesn't align with what your ego is telling you is reality.
Take your hand and knock on your desk or wall. The configuration of molecules makes it feel very real and solid, doesn't it? But yet atomic physicists have concluded that hydrogen atoms are 99.9999999999996% empty space. But your perceptions only account for that which you can feel as real, and this is how we are mislead. Our senses shape our reality--not the other way around.
Not only is the material world a literal mirage, it never remains the same. Unlike something real, which by definition means it endures, the material world is highly impermanent. Nothing lasts here, in this world we mistakenly call the real world. Always changing, constantly in motion, morphing from one thing to another, our bodies inhabit a physical plane of existence that never remains the same, even from one moment to the next. Is physical life truly the complete picture of reality? How can we perceive anything we can observe as a true reality if it is only a shadow of what's there? The only reality with any realness is that which is lasting, genuine and authentic, whose existence is unchanging and eternal.
Our universe did not create itself. No matter how long we labour, as humans we could never create something on the same order of complexity. Even try as we may to create novel DNA and self-sustaining, reproducing creatures out of dead matter, they will never have life or sentience. The scientific method will never be able to explain where we came from and what makes us truly alive, and if you are refusing to explore philosophy then you will never hope to approach a sound understanding. But if you are biased, you were never going for a sound understanding from the beginning.
Philosophy deals with important questions are those which remain unanswered when all the facts are in. Moral questions are the prime example. No factual discovery could ever settle a question of right or wrong. But that does not mean that moral questions are empty questions or pseudo-questions, or that right and wrong have no basis in reality. We can think better about them and can even have more informed debates by learning new facts. This can't happen if you decide that right and wrong do not exist because they are not provable using the scientific method.
What is disparagingly called scientism insists that, if a question isn't amenable to scientific solution, it is not a serious question at all. Yet it is an ineliminable feature of human life that we are confronted with many issues that are not scientifically tractable, but we can grapple with them, understand them as best we can and we can do this with some rigour and seriousness of mind.
>Yes, that's known as the "god of the gaps". Any time there's something that we don't yet understand you can say "see? It's spirits doing that!"Let us compare our positions.
I acknowledge there are things that are not possible to explain using science.
You acknowledge that science can eventually explain everything.
Philosophy uses reason, and so does the scientific method.
I am blind in my left eye and I have for a long time been able to see a completely different, yet unchanging reality when I look through it into that world. Yet I can also see the Earthly world through my right eye.
With your eyes you see the physical world in which you live, with your two eyes and mind fixated on physical reality.
We are both the same in that we believe in what we can see and perceive. It's the amount and quality of experiences we've had which makes us differ in our beliefs.
Instead of telling scores of others that their experiences are nonsense and trying to take these significant experiences away from them, you should give people something to believe in, something to live for, something to explore. But perhaps you do not care about those things.