Re: [Death To Religion] 430 / zealot
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...> wrote:
> -M: In science, aren't you asked to believe in the ScientificYou don't have to believe in it. The evidence that it works is right
in front of you (you are using a computer to read this right?).
> -M: The way I see it, my definition is much older and well testedYour definition is well tested yes.
> than your definition. If semantic games are being played, it by your
> team. This is why I am for debating over definitions.
Well tested and found to be wanting.
> -M: Science reports aren't testimony?Correct.
- --bestonnet_00 wrote:
> --n1n31nchn3rd wrote:[...]
> > What, I can't use science and math?-M: Science, yes, but not material science for what I am aware. The
only *God detectors* that I am aware of are biologicals, the best
being mystics like saints, sages and siddhas.
Math, logic and other languages are based upon *differentiation* -
differentiation between objects and their contexts, and
differeitiation between input and output.
God is undifferentiated, so math doesn't work towards proving him.
If you want proof of God, get involved in spiritual practice and
meditate. If you want to understand the subsiquent religious
experiences, this is what the scriptures of the philosopher-saints
>B: Science isn't a good thing to use to show that something whichdoesn't exist exists.
-M: Can you prove this?