vaxx:
All acting/thinking is to some degree illogical and irrational. Actually, in human terms, there is no pure or purely rational thought. There are just different levels of cognitions, speculations, estimations, evaluations, judgments, etc

To some degree?
I hope you are not referring to what should be described as "good"/"bad" because those two words are just words.
And "words" are "declarifications".

In my terms,LOGIC is simply the REASONING that satisfies the conditions that require its application absolutely, when you consider all the considerables and perceptibles.
Human Limitations shouldn't suggest 'Indeterminability of Logic'.
Rational Thinking shouldn't be a choice.
It should be practiced as often as possible.
No one thinks in a certain way all the time unless he or she has serious mental issues.
Under normal circumstances the brain can't function like that because it is affected by what happens on the 'outside'

vaxx:
i will go check but needs to answer the question asked

You only condemn what You have a better version for, you don't condemn what you can't recreate.

So people should not critic anybody's work simply because they can't reproduce it? Really?

gensteejay:

I think you're looking at this issue through the lens of religion. Science will do that and more.

You only need to stay abreast with current progress and research made by scientists in molecular biology, robotics, stem cell transplant, organ transplant, 3D organ replication and printing.

The possibilities of science in the new age are limitless. In the 20th and 21st centuries, surgeons have been able to transplant virtually every organ in the body, including brain, heart, lungs, etc.

And radical scientists have done a lot of research on techniques for head transplant and have conducted tests on dogs. Vladimir Demikhov, a Russian scientist, is one of such doctors who conducted a series of head transplant experiments and created a 2-headed dog in the 1950s.

Dr. Robert White has also done similar experiments with monkeys. And a number of other doctors.

It's only a matter of time before the techniques will become improved so that they can be suitable for man, to give life to a cadaver.

It's only a matter of time before scientists will be able to create man using things from nature.

Religionists may regard these possibilities as atrocious or heretical but I am an advocate of any technology that will improve human lives, reduce mortality rates across the world, and expand the oeuvres of scientists' research on biological concepts.

And when such milestones are finally made, necessary checks will be put on place to curb any abuse... .

Wow first it was artificial suns and moons, now its artificial people, yet there you were objecting to cultured meat saying its not based in reality. LoL!

HellVictorinho:

To some degree?
I hope you are not referring to what should be described as "good"/"bad" because those two words are just words.
And "words" are "declarifications

According to medical science what is useful for human health is known as good and what is harmful for human health is known as bad. So it can't simply be a mere words as we can see clearly why the words is personified.

In my terms,LOGIC is simply the REASONING that satisfies the conditions that require its application absolutely, when you consider all the considerables and perceptibles.

When the premises are false. It doesn’t matter if your logic is perfect if your initially believes are incorrect, and logic can prove NOTHING without initial beliefs.

Human Limitations shouldn't suggest 'Indeterminability of Logic'.
Rational Thinking shouldn't be a choice.
It should be practiced as often as possible.
No one thinks in a certain way all the time unless he or she has serious mental issues.
Under normal circumstances the brain can't function like that because it is affected by what happens on the 'outside'

first logic doesn't establish truth, it only establish consistency. That is not the same as correct. If logic was always right, there would be only one outcome resulting from its application. However that is not the case.

A diagram below explain better.

LordReed:


So people should not critic anybody's work simply because they can't reproduce it? Really?

Anything at all should be ridicule even if it is God.. but what is the essence of ridiculing when alternative don't exist.

Your critic can only be better perceived when there is alternative on ground. A Rational thinker will weight it and juxtapose which one is making more sense. You can't tell me my girlfriend noodles is tasteless when i haven't eat your girlfriend noodles.

LordReed:


Wow first it was artificial suns and moons, now its artificial people, yet there you were objecting to cultured meat saying its not based in reality. LoL!

Mention where I said that. To your myopic mind, putting a stop to animal killing is equivalent to adopting the consumption of cultured meat.

It was the idea of abolishing killing of animals for food that I said it's not realistic, and I described the techniques for producing cultured meat as futuristic.

vaxx:

According to medical science what is useful for human health is known as good and what is harmful for human health is known as bad. So it can simply be a mere words as we can see clearly why the words is personified.

When the premises are false. It doesn’t matter if your logic is perfect if your initially believes are incorrect, and logic can prove NOTHING without initial beliefs.
first logic doesn't establish truth, it only establish consistency. That is not the same as correct. If logic was always right there would be only one outcome resulting from its application. However that is not the case.

A diagram below explain better.

In medical science, what is good for your health can become bad/dangerous (the case of drugs).
In medical science as well,what is good for your health now could be bad for your health later (Lifestyle).

Logic shouldn't have to prove.
Logic should be proven.
Truth has to be proved.
And this proof should be logical.
Logic should be satisfactory.But it doesn't have to be right.
We should arrive at LOGIC-the Ultimate Reasoning.
Truth should express LOGIC.
If certain things are distorted/twisted/incompletely explained,we shouldn't be surprised at the results because when something is stated,the first thing to consider about the statement is the knowledge behind the statement.
If the knowledge is verifiable, it will be considered as reasonable.
If the knowledge is confirmed to be accurate by the evaluation and assessment of its source,it will be considered as LOGICAL and expressed as Truth.

gensteejay:

Mention where I said that. To your myopic mind, putting a stop to animal killing is equivalent to adopting the consumption of cultured meat.

It was the idea of abolishing killing of animals for food that I said it's not realistic, and I described the techniques for producing cultured meat as futuristic.

You can do without the name calling, I see no reason for it in a decent discussion.

I guess I conflated your comments with those of HellVictorinho my apologies.

HellVictorinho:


In medical science, what is good for your health can become bad/dangerous (the case of drugs).
In medical science as well,what is good for your health now could be bad for your health later (Lifestyle

).Yet it still doesn't change the application of the word. Medical health is a progressive work, if today paracetamol is detected to be harmful to human consumption, the term bad will be attached to it, if tomorrow, a research indicate that chloroquine is essential to our continuous intake it will be recalled and labelled good. So the words is apply base on how the research is carried out.

Logic shouldn't have to prove.
Logic should be proven.
Truth has to be proved.
And this proof should be logical.
Logic should be satisfactory.But it doesn't have to be right.
We should arrive at LOGIC-the Ultimate Reasoning.
Truth should express LOGIC.
If certain things are distorted/twisted/incompletely explained,we shouldn't be surprised at the results because when something is stated,the first thing to consider about the statement is the knowledge behind the statement.
If the knowledge is verifiable, it will be considered as reasonable.
If the knowledge is confirmed to be accurate by the evaluation and assessment of its source,it will be considered as LOGICAL and expressed as Truth.

I think the diagram i posted there should give you a better veiw.

Logic is deductive, not inductive. Logic is only a method of deriving something which is already established or assumed. The truth of fallacy of something logically derived is completely dependent on what its derived from. The original statement has to be verified by sensory perception. However the scope of sensory perception, even after enhancement by technology, is still much lmited. How then can we rely on logic?

LordReed:


You can do without the name calling, I see no reason for it in a decent discussion.

I guess I conflated your comments with those of HellVictorinho my apologies.

Ok

vaxx:
).Yet it still doesn't change the application of the word. Medical health is a progressive work, if today paracetamol is detected to be harmful to human consumption, the term bad will be attached to it, if tomorrow, a research indicate that chloroquine is essential to our continuous intake it will be recalled and labelled good. So the words is apply base on how the research is carried out.

I think the diagram i posted there should give you a better veiw.

Logic is deductive, not inductive. Logic is only a method of deriving something which is already established or assumed. The truth of fallacy of something logically derived is completely dependent on what its derived from. The original statement has to be verified by sensory perception. However the scope of sensory perception, even after enhancement by technology, is still much lmited. How then can we rely on logic?

We can't rely on Logic when it is considered as a method.(For propositions)
But we can rely on it when it is considered as a mental activity that is independent of uncertainty.
You might choose to call it 'Informed Reasoning' because it involves that which is needed for it to be productively approvable.
The Information here must be testable so that when the results are achieved (produced),they won't have to be disproved in terms of defined accuracy.
In other words, The Standards for Logical Evaluations must be set and the Information must be derived by careful observation of the circumstances under which the need for such activity arises.

HellVictorinho:

We can't rely on Logic when it is considered as a method.(For propositions)
But we can rely on it when it is considered as a mental activity that is independent of uncertainty.
You might choose to call it 'Informed Reasoning' because it involves that which is needed for it to be productively approvable.
The Information here must be testable so that when the results are achieved (produced),they won't have to be disproved in terms of defined accuracy.
In other words, The Standards for Logical Evaluations must be set and the Information must be derived by careful observation of the the circumstances under which the need for such activity arises.

Then you agree and accept that logic is deductive reasoning.

Epistemologicallly its asset of judgements does not require experience (sense data, empirical data) for making up truth. So i ask in another tone, how do you want us take a system of reasoning that do not require experience for their truth seriously especially on a complex issue like life.?

vaxx:
Then you agrwe and accept that logic is deductive reasoning.

Epistemologicallly its asset of judgements does not require experience (sense data, empirical data) for making up truth. So i ask in another tone, how do you want us take a system of reasoning that do not require experience for their truth seriously especially on a complex issue like life.?

We can review the system of reasoning.

gensteejay:

Yes, apart from evolution there were several advanced entities (called gods in religion) that designed and fashioned ancient men, microbes, plants, animals.

Those entities also designed suns, moons, and I think planets (not sure I remember this correctly). All these are claims from those books I made mention of earlier.

I think there

Except that the things one thinks up in ones head are just that, thoughts, and have nothing to do with what may or may not actually exist. There after all is some reality that does exist, like the river, and its components, which can be broken down into the water, the H₂O it's made of, and even the components that brought about the H an O about and so on, so why fill in the limits of whats known, the gaps in ones knowledge, with a thought of and made up creator that there's no evidence for? Is it not more appropriate to just accept the limits of ones knowledge rather than fill it up with mere beliefs?

gensteejay:

A plethora of evidence abound: from microsystems, like microbes, animals, men, women, plants, etc. to macrosystems, like natural satellites (moons), planets, stars (or suns), galaxies, etc.

By studying all these and appreciating their complexity, one can observe a number of facts about them:

1. Each of the systems is governed by (natural/universal) Laws, Principles
2. Like these Laws and Principles cannot just become manifest out of thin air, these systems must have been designed by some intelligence

No. Your 2, does not necessarily follow. The fact that a thing exists does not imply that a thing maker must exist, and is shown by the simple fact that believers in creators would argue that there is no creators creator ad infinitum. You got to wonder why they don't extend 2 to their gods, unless one wishes to be lazy. Thats why we call it the god of the gaps. The ignorance we fill in our ignorance with.

budaatum:

No. Your 2, does not necessarily follow. The fact that a thing exists does not imply that a thing maker must exist, and is shown by the simple fact that believers in creators would argue that there is no creators creator ad infinitum. You got to wonder why they don't extend 2 to their gods, unless one wishes to be lazy. Thats why we call it the god of the gaps. The ignorance we fill in our ignorance with.

His number 2 was a logical leap without connection to 1. But oh well. Who get energy kwanu?

budaatum:

No. Your 2, does not necessarily follow. The fact that a thing exists does not imply that a thing maker must exist, and is shown by the simple fact that believers in creators would argue that there is no creators creator ad infinitum. You got to wonder why they don't extend 2 to their gods, unless one wishes to be lazy. Thats why we call it the god of the gaps. The ignorance we fill in our ignorance with.

This sort of discussion about God does not usually lead to any tangible conclusion. Even though I'm more of a knowledge seeker and rational thinker than a believer, I would still hold on to my belief that this universe, including our world, was designed by a Maker, but not the gods of religions who themselves are parts of this Maker.

I have not seen any logical reason to believe otherwise.

gensteejay:

This sort of discussion about God does not usually lead to any tangible conclusion. Even though I'm more of a knowledge seeker and rational thinker than a believer, I would still hold on to my belief that this universe, including our world, was designed by a Maker, but not the gods of religions who themselves are parts of this Maker.

I have not seen any logical reason to believe otherwise.

Well, least you admit it is a belief - a "creations and fabrications of men", or "things cooked up in the head", as I'd put it, and not actual knowledge based on your own scrutiny of the evidence with your own senses.

I wonder if you've heard of my belief? It's to do with an imaginary million pounds that's in my bank account with which I intend to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari as soon as I find a Ferrari salesperson willing to believe me. You don't happen to sell Ferraris do you?

If there was a concept that ought to be common to atheists (not that there is one, or at least, not all atheists subscribe to it though they ought to), I'd say it's the scientific method, which is the critical analysis of beliefs. It's a way to check if the beliefs we hold on to are valid or not, and why science, the scrutiny and analysis of evidence, thrives and leads to progress. Without it, the earth would still be the centre of the universe and flat.

johnydon22:


His number 2 was a logical leap without connection to 1. But oh well. Who get energy kwanu?

You do, actually, and me too, thread after thread after thread.

Don't sell yourself short, johnydon. If the people we're discussing with don't get it, there's many more silently reading who do, as the evidence has shown by those who have come to see the logic of what we say and dumped their beliefs. Please relent not nor despair.

vaxx:
Then you agree and accept that logic is deductive reasoning.

Epistemologicallly its asset of judgements does not require experience (sense data, empirical data) for making up truth. So i ask in another tone, how do you want us take a system of reasoning that do not require experience for their truth seriously especially on a complex issue like life.?

Try applying the scientific method of reasoning too. After all, no one says logic, which is like covering one eye to see, is the only lens of scrutiny!

budaatum:

Well, least you admit it is a belief - a "creations and fabrications of men", or "things cooked up in the head", as I'd put it, and not actual knowledge based on your own scrutiny of the evidence with your own senses.

I wonder if you've heard of my belief? It's to do with an imaginary million pounds that's in my bank account with which I intend to buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari as soon as I find a Ferrari salesperson willing to believe me. You don't happen to sell Ferraris do you?

If there was a concept that ought to be common to atheists (not that there is one, or at least, not all atheists subscribe to it though they ought to), I'd say it's the scientific method, which is the critical analysis of beliefs. It's a way to check if the beliefs we hold on to are valid or not, and why science, the scrutiny and analysis of evidence, thrives and leads to progress. Without it, the earth would still be the centre of the universe and flat.

The highlighted part of your post above is very far from the truth. People that are actually familiar with philosophy (as a field) will be to place my views on God under a specific branch of philosophy, which is Hermetic philosophy.

Everything I have stated about God were derived from books I have read on philosophy and history, so they are not my inventions or theories.

And as I've stated before, having studied atheism and identified its flaws, I still maintain my stance on God. I don't see much sense in atheism and can't wrap my head around the existence of an object or system (e.g. the universe) without a designer or maker.

budaatum:

Try applying the scientific method of reasoning too. After all, no one says logic, which is like covering one eye to see, is the only lens of scrutiny!

How do you apply the scientific method when discussing God when science has made little progress on much simpler things, like consciousness, soul, death, ESP (extra sensory perception) or intuition, and a number of paranormal concepts. Science hasn't even fully explained/grasped circadian rhythms, like sleep.

Science still has a long way to go. With time, science will be able to shed more light on the First Cause or God and paranormal concepts.

Applying the current scientific methods to prove or disprove God's existence is a waste of time. The methods are simply too basic and incongruous. Only logic and philosophy can help.

My daughter is barely two years old...

She doesn't know my father.. and she won't have the privilege to see my dad because he is dead.

In the next five years, I will tell her that I had a Father.

She will have to believe my word. A picture of my dad is not even an evidence to her because she will not be able to tell if that's my father or not.

I am the evidence of the fact that I had a father. She will not understand this evidence until a certain time of her life.

God exists. We believe by what we have read about him and through our experiences as we walk with him.

As we walk with him, we get to know him more and feel his manifestation...

The more we grow in our knowledge of him, the more we know more.

Paul walked with God and God told him it was time for him to be called home to rest. Same with Peter.

God became so real to them that they endured persecutions and gruesome execution.

A child in the womb doesn't have any memory of his or her existence....Yet, that knowledge of the child's existence is so common among those who saw the mother pregnant ...

She could argue that she never lived in the womb..

The fact that we don't know something or see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or it is false.

God is real. Read, look around and find him.

gensteejay:

The highlighted part of your post above is very far from the truth. People that are actually familiar with philosophy (as a field) will be to place my views on God under a specific branch of philosophy, which is Hermetic philosophy.

Everything I have stated about God were derived from books I have read on philosophy and history, so they are not my inventions or theories.

And as I've stated before, having studied atheism and identified its flaws, I still maintain my stance on God. I don't see much sense in atheism and can't wrap my head around the existence of an object or system (e.g. the universe) without a designer or maker.

I hate when people talk as if no one else has access to information they have. One of the great exponents of Hermeticism is George Robert Stowe Mead (22 March 1863 – 28 September 1933. His book on the topic is called Trice Greatest Hermes in three volumes, in which he explores the origin of the main hermetic text, which is included, and its historic influence on Islam and Christian thought. I have a hard copy I paid £50 for before the days of the Internet, and found it so profound that for five years, I made sure it was my reading every January. The intention being that I wanted it to influence my thinking, which it very much does. It is from the Pymander, the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, that my "sow maize, reap maize" reference came from! That though does not mean that I have to believe whatever is said in it. Understanding, after all, is not the same as believing! And in fact, since it is about developing the mind, I'd go as far as claiming believing shows one has missed the point of hermeticism.

The fact that one believes a book one has read does not make one's belief fact or actual reality. Belief is a choice. And things one believes are not necessarily things one knows. In fact, things one believes are believed specifically because one does not know but chooses to accept as valid without confirming evidence. When you believe you stop learning. When you know, you stop believing. Hermeticism 101, I'd call that!

Please, I advice anyone not familiar with this book to read it. It is worth the time. But it in no way proves the existence of gods. Unless you approach it with your eyes closed!

As to you not seeing anything in atheism, that is your choice. No one is asking you to abandon your gods. But when we come on here and state our views as if they are facts, and in threads like this one, we must expect our reasoning to be challenged, and with evidence, and not the pitting of beliefs we choose to hold on to. There are after all threads where people freely expound their beliefs unchallenged, but this is not the sort, you would find.

I would very much like to hear about the flaws you claim to have found in atheism. Perhaps you can challenge me too. But note that merely stating beliefs challenges no one, unless there's a Ferrari at stake.



Hermeticism, also called Hermetism, is a religious, philosophical, and esoteric tradition based primarily upon writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest Hermes". These writings have greatly influenced the Western esoteric tradition and were considered to be of great importance during both the Renaissance and the Reformation. The tradition claims descent from a prisca theologia, a doctrine that affirms the existence of a single, true theology that is present in all religions and that was given by God to man in antiquity.

budaatum:

I hate when people talk as if no one else has access to information they have. One of the great exponents of Hermeticism is George Robert Stowe Mead (22 March 1863 – 28 September 1933. His book on the topic is called Trice Greatest Hermes in three volumes, in which he explores the origin of the main hermetic text, which is included, and its historic influence on Islam and Christian thought. I have a hard copy I paid £50 for before the days of the Internet, and found it so profound that for five years, I made sure it was my reading every January. The intention being that I wanted it to influence my thinking, which it very much does. It is from the Pymander, the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, that my "sow maize, reap maize" reference came from! That though does not mean that I have to believe whatever is said in it. Understanding, after all, is not the same as believing! And in fact, since it is about developing the mind, I'd go as far as claiming believing shows one has missed the point of hermeticism.

The fact that one believes a book one has read does not make one's belief fact or actual reality. Belief is a choice. And things one believes are not necessarily things one knows. In fact, things one believes are believed specifically because one does not know but chooses to accept as valid without confirming evidence. When you believe you stop learning.
When you know, you stop believing. Hermeticism 101, I'd call that!

Please, I advice anyone not familiar with this book to read it. It is worth the time. But it in no way proves the existence of gods. Unless you approach it with your eyes closed!

As to you not seeing anything in atheism, that is your choice. No one is asking you to abandon your gods. But when we come on here and state our views as if they are facts, and in threads like this one, we must expect our reasoning to be challenged, and with evidence, and not the pitting of beliefs we choose to hold on to. There are after all threads where people freely expound their beliefs unchallenged, but this is not the sort, you would find.

I would very much like to hear about the flaws you claim to have found in atheism. Perhaps you can challenge me too. But note that merely stating beliefs challenges no one, unless there's a Ferrari at stake.



Hermeticism, also called Hermetism, is a religious, philosophical, and esoteric tradition based primarily upon writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest Hermes". These writings have greatly influenced the Western esoteric tradition and were considered to be of great importance during both the Renaissance and the Reformation. The tradition claims descent from a prisca theologia, a doctrine that affirms the existence of a single, true theology that is present in all religions and that was given by God to man in antiquity.

Check out'The Explanation for Existence'- a topic I created.
And tell me what you think of the'Existential Constant'

gensteejay:

How do you apply the scientific method when discussing God when science has made little progress on much simpler things, like consciousness, soul, death, ESP (extra sensory perception) or intuition, and a number of paranormal concepts. Science hasn't even fully explained/grasped circadian rhythms, like sleep.

Science still has a long way to go. With time, science will be able to shed more light on the First Cause or God and paranormal concepts.

Applying the current scientific methods to prove or disprove God's existence is a waste of time. The methods are simply too basic and incongruous. Only logic and philosophy can help.

That's your opinion, which you are very free to hold on to. Its however not true that "science has made little progress on much simpler things, like consciousness, soul, death, ESP (extra sensory perception) or intuition, and a number of paranormal concepts". In fact, science has made immense progress on those topics, even if that progress is still the scratching of the surface.

All the same, that's no reason to fill the gap in our knowledge with a fabricated concept called god, which can be studied in its own right. And to be honest, since you have studied atheism, as you claim, I can see why you are ambivalent towards atheism. I, for instance studied gods, for that's what I was looking to understand. You might see how our different approaches have led us to different conclusions.

budaatum:

I hate when people talk as if no one else has access to information they have. One of the great exponents of Hermeticism is George Robert Stowe Mead (22 March 1863 – 28 September 1933. His book on the topic is called Trice Greatest Hermes in three volumes, in which he explores the origin of the main hermetic text, which is included, and its historic influence on Islam and Christian thought. I have a hard copy I paid £50 for before the days of the Internet, and found it so profound that for five years, I made sure it was my reading every January. The intention being that I wanted it to influence my thinking, which it very much does. It is from the Pymander, the first tractate in the Corpus Hermeticum, that my "sow maize, reap maize" reference came from! That though does not mean that I have to believe whatever is said in it. Understanding, after all, is not the same as believing! And in fact, since it is about developing the mind, I'd go as far as claiming believing shows one has missed the point of hermeticism.

The fact that one believes a book one has read does not make one's belief fact or actual reality. Belief is a choice. And things one believes are not necessarily things one knows. In fact, things one believes are believed specifically because one does not know but chooses to accept as valid without confirming evidence. When you believe you stop learning.
When you know, you stop believing. Hermeticism 101, I'd call that!

Please, I advice anyone not familiar with this book to read it. It is worth the time. But it in no way proves the existence of gods. Unless you approach it with your eyes closed!

As to you not seeing anything in atheism, that is your choice. No one is asking you to abandon your gods. But when we come on here and state our views as if they are facts, and in threads like this one, we must expect our reasoning to be challenged, and with evidence, and not the pitting of beliefs we choose to hold on to. There are after all threads where people freely expound their beliefs unchallenged, but this is not the sort, you would find.

I would very much like to hear about the flaws you claim to have found in atheism. Perhaps you can challenge me too. But note that merely stating beliefs challenges no one, unless there's a Ferrari at stake.



Hermeticism, also called Hermetism, is a religious, philosophical, and esoteric tradition based primarily upon writings attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ("thrice-greatest Hermes". These writings have greatly influenced the Western esoteric tradition and were considered to be of great importance during both the Renaissance and the Reformation. The tradition claims descent from a prisca theologia, a doctrine that affirms the existence of a single, true theology that is present in all religions and that was given by God to man in antiquity.

Masterpiece! Saved for posterity.

LoJ:

Masterpiece! Saved for posterity.

Believe me, the book referenced is a much better masterpiece and is very much worth the read. And the fact that gensteejay mentioned Hermeticism commands respect, though I very much doubt he read Mead's detailed study on the topic, considering his understanding of it.

When Christ said "Know ye not that ye are gods?" I would claim this book is close to giving an answer that is closer than many if properly understood. Unfortunately, its more likely to just be believed, as opposed to wringing out the lessons in it and what it implies.

gensteejay:

How do you apply the scientific method when discussing God when science has made little progress on much simpler things, like consciousness, soul, death, ESP (extra sensory perception) or intuition, and a number of paranormal concepts. Science hasn't even fully explained/grasped circadian rhythms, like sleep.

Science still has a long way to go. With time, science will be able to shed more light on the First Cause or God and paranormal concepts.

Applying the current scientific methods to prove or disprove God's existence is a waste of time. The methods are simply too basic and incongruous. Only logic and philosophy can help.

You have evidence that anything paranormal exists?

budaatum:

I hate when people talk as if no one else has access to information they have. One of the great exponents of .

.[/color]

Whether it's Hermeticism, religions, atheism, science, etc., no single field, movement or group has all the complete knowledge on all these issues we are discussing. And I read books on concepts in all these fields/groups, critically analyse their ideals and philosophies, and gain a couple of things from there.

Each of the fields or movements has some truths.

I didn't present things I say as facts or ultimate truths, which is why you will see statements, like "in my own opinion," "I feel," "I think," and the likes in my posts. And it's normal to challenge the viewpoints on issues discussed here since one can also learn in the process.

LordReed:


You have evidence that anything paranormal exists?

I would create a thread on this in my spare time.

budaatum:

Try applying the scientific method of reasoning too. After all, no one says logic, which is like covering one eye to see, is the only lens of scrutiny!

All sort of reasoning should be required to test a rigorous subject such as this, and rely upon one is ineffective. Abductive, deductive and inductive are all applicable.