Science Proves the Spiritual

Scientists aren't spiritual. A broad statement that is FALSE. Who is making
this sweeping judgement on those who have a college degree? Does becoming
a scienist mean that you dump your beliefs when you get your diploma?
Here is my answer to that: All those who say scientists aren't spiritual are
ignorant, misinformed bigots who would rather perpetuate a lie than enlighten
themselves.

Yeah, this concept really angers me. Besides being untrue, it is usually made
by those who have no real idea what it means to be either a scientist or spiritual.
If you were either, you would not say such a thing because you would know better.
My favorite saying is "Sure God/ddess made everything. And s/he gave us the smarts
to figure out how s/he did it."

What isn't understood is that science can be used to prove that some things
really are unknown and paranormal. I'm not talking about unicorns and werewolves.
I mean things that have no reasonable explanation. As our knowledge as human
beings progress, we are able to dispell many things as being paranormal.
Rainbows do not point the way to a pot of gold. They are made by light being refracted
by water droplets. Does it make the rainbow less beautiful? Do you not get as
excited to see one? Does it make you less likely to show it to your children?
Of course not. If you answered yes, then it matters not what your proffesion is,
you are an emotionless person.

If something runs the gamut of tests and still "does not compute", then the only
answer left is supernatural. The Catholic church got it right about miracles. They
must undergo vigorous testing to determine divine intervention. Spontaneous
cures can happen, but we still can't explain why. This is spiritual. You cannot dis-
prove that it is not. It is now accepted by science that spontaneous cures can happen.

Premonitions happen. They are documented and accepted by all but the few in
the scientific community. Paranormal investigations are bringing forth
evidence that there is life after death. We now have the technology to record
"something" that in scientific terms shouldn't be there. The soul? Most likely.
So science is proving the ultimate in spiritual. Does that make it less spiritual?
Remember we are talking about the soul here. Anyone?

A few months ago, a man that I greatly respected said that he had proved God/dess
didn't exist. That really bummed me out. I think it bummed a lot of people out.
I couldn't accept it. Yes, he is much smarter than I am, but I know that there is
something out there bigger than us. This really bothered me. I couldn't rest until
I had come up with a way of agreeing with both. Yeah, I was really stuck. Then I remembered
something I had read. The universe/all/god/dess breathes. Inhale and exhale.
Did the ancients understand the big bang theory? Did they know that the all powerful
took everything in and then let it out again and that this was the only way they
had of explaining it? The universe is still expanding (breathing out). When it
contracts again it will be breathing in until it reaches the point of another big bang
or another exhale. Finally I was happy. I could believe what both man the scientist and man the
spiritual had to say. It fit.

I have never had a problem with other beings like elementals and such. Sure they are on
another plane. Science has proved other dimensions right? No contradiction in either
belief there. God/ess is everything. Yep, and God/dess breathes. So do we who were
created in the same image. Makes sense! Yes, I am all for science. I am also for
the great unexplainable mysteries. Because they do have an explanation. We just aren't
God/dess like enough yet to fully quantify them.

I agree with you there. Once a person has studied Creation as much as these great scientists, they will be left in awe and tone down their arrogance in a sudden realization that there is "something" bigger out there.

Originally Posted by RiversLady

"A few months ago, a man that I greatly respected said that he had proved God/dess didn't exist"

As for this, I am rather saddened, but personally I don't think Science is capable of proving something doesn't exist. And yes, I am talking about Unicorns and Werewolves, too. By its very nature Science can only prove something DOES exist. For instance, there is no proof, up to date, that Unicorns exist. That does not however, prove that they don't. All Science can say, is that they have searched around the world and have never found any. It's like saying "there are no other intelligent beings in this universe but humans." Science cannot conclude that this is the absolute truth. All they can say is that they've been searching space and have never found any. This is what some Atheists and Agnostics mean when they say "You can't disprove that which has not been proven to exist", when arguing about the existence of God.

How can you disprove it, when you don't even know if it exists?
Then again, why in the world would you disprove it if it does?

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Sybilline

I agree with you there. Once a person has studied Creation as much as these great scientists, they will be left in awe and tone down their arrogance in a sudden realization that there is "something" bigger out there.



As for this, I am rather saddened, but personally I don't think Science is capable of proving something doesn't exist. And yes, I am talking about Unicorns and Werewolves, too. By its very nature Science can only prove something DOES exist. For instance, there is no proof, up to date, that Unicorns exist. That does not however, prove that they don't. All Science can say, is that they have searched around the world and have never found any. It's like saying "there are no other intelligent beings in this universe but humans." Science cannot conclude that this is the absolute truth. All they can say is that they've been searching space and have never found any. This is what some Atheists and Agnostics mean when they say "You can't disprove that which has not been proven to exist".

How can you disprove it, when you don't even know if it exists?
Then again, why in the world would you disprove it if it does?

There is something bigger, but it certainly ain't a god.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

There is something bigger, but it certainly ain't a god.

It has had countless names. :)

[psychoslice]

Originally Posted by Sybilline

It has had countless names. :)

But all those names are not what IS, there is nothing outside of what IS, you cannot study it, because you and everything else is IT.

Originally Posted by psychoslice

But all those names are not what IS, there is nothing outside of what IS, you cannot study it, because you and everything else is IT.

What is IT to you? What IS?

Thats like trying to find the end of eternity, it is what it is, everything and nothing.

I don't think its obvious there's 'something' bigger the same way its not obvious there isn't something bigger. To say there is definately a higher divine is as arrogant as saying there isn't.

It's all relative and belief systems, everyone is entitled to their own belief system weather thats believing nothing or everything. Its entirely personal and its unfair to say "they will be left in awe and tone down their arrogance in a sudden realization that there is "something" bigger out there.", Thats YOUR belief system.

Perhaps just some people are happy believing what they already believe, and if thats nothing, then thats their choice. the same way its yours to believe in your god/ess etc.

Originally Posted by RiversLady

If something runs the gamut of tests and still "does not compute", then the only answer left is supernatural.

Why? Can you elaborate on what you mean by "does not compute"? What I think you mean is that the observation does not fit any current scientific models. Science (as a body of knowledge) is always evolving. If observations are made that do not fit within a scientific model, the model is modified. This happens all of the time in science. To simply call something that does not fit "supernatural" wouldn't really do any good, nor provide any additional explanatory power.

As an example, the entire field of quantum mechanics was developed to describe experimental observations that did not "fit" classical mechanics (photoelectric effect, blackbody radiation, double slit experiment, etc). If those early experimenters had called the observations "supernatural" and moved on, there is a chance we wouldn't be having this conversation because quantum mechanics is at the heart of modern electronics!

Originally Posted by RiversLady

The universe/all/god/dess breathes. Inhale and exhale. Did the ancients understand the big bang theory? Did they know that the all powerful took everything in and then let it out again and that this was the only way they had of explaining it? The universe is still expanding (breathing out). When it contracts again it will be breathing in until it reaches the point of another big bang or another exhale.

Actually, what you are describing here (the "Big Crunch" scenario) has fallen out of favor over the past several years due to the observation that the universe's expansion is actually accelerating.

Originally Posted by Sybilline

Personally I don't think Science is capable of proving something doesn't exist. And yes, I am talking about Unicorns and Werewolves, too. By its very nature Science can only prove something DOES exist. For instance, there is no proof, up to date, that Unicorns exist. That does not however, prove that they don't. All Science can say, is that they have searched around the world and have never found any. It's like saying "there are no other intelligent beings in this universe but humans." Science cannot conclude that this is the absolute truth. All they can say is that they've been searching space and have never found any. This is what some Atheists and Agnostics mean when they say "You can't disprove that which has not been proven to exist", when arguing about the existence of God.

This is a good point. For an interesting and related discussion, see Russell's teapot. This situation shifts the burden of proof onto those making positive claims (e.g. "werewolves do exists" or "telepathy does exist"). In other words, if someone is claiming that a werewolf exists, it is their responsibility to provide evidence and it is unreasonable for them to claim skeptics instead "prove that werewolves don't exist."

By the way, while I take issue with a couple specific things you said (see my post above), RiversLady, I do definitely agree with your general motivation for this thread. That is, I agree that it's silly and false to say that scientists hate spirituality or aren't spiritual.