« Religious mindset supports skepticism about science | Main | Liberation: freedom from craving to be perfect »

December 16, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

what happened to huckleberry's comment? i never got to read it. i guess the night janitor thought it trash and so tossed it in the ash-y bin.

alas, blogging is like life. here one moment... gone the next.

which reminds me...


tAo, huckleberry's comment was unpublished because of insults and rants that went against this blog's comment guidelines. Ditto for haribaldi's comment. I'm always surprised that these religious fundamentalists are so good at following their own "ten commandments," but aren't capable to following this blog's much more sensible rules.

Well one thing about deciding what is real is that we may not be able to see it but someone else could. We do that with science all the time. Do you know that we are made up of atoms by anything other than experts telling you? I guess you could say you don't need to know it but it's a basic part of existence and a truth that is not discernible without knowledge and tools. I won't say that the supernatural is necessarily the same thing in that there aren't tools; but there are those who have had experiences and can relate them. There are those who see things the rest of us do not and can tell us. Some might be frauds but some might be telling the literal truth as they have observed or experienced it. I don't have to see everything to believe it; but I understand your concern about the frauds out there who milk 'visions' for their profit and to gain power over others. We also have to separate out the mentally ill (those who have no control over their visions) from genuine otherworldy experiences

Cant find the reference but some months ago, I read about a group of theoretical researches working on multidimensional modelling. These guys were programming computers to model up to 13 dimensions. What was interesting was that these researchers could, after a while, readily mentally visualise 4, 5 and even 6 dimensions, in ways we cannot begin to form images.
It is as if the brain, once trained, can see things that are purely mental constructs.
Some further work was being conducted to try to understand how these researchers could so readily form mental images of non-observable objects, but when tested they were able to visualise quicker than their computer model.
Will go and search again for the link, all interesting stuff, I dont think the world is quite so black and white as some science promoters would have us believe.

The quantum theorists are almost ready to conclude that what was once defined as 'real' in terms of sensual external observation is now a shadow of reality and in essence is actually 'unreal', in like terms to what the ancients have always known to be 'maya' or 'illusion'.

So what the new age scientists of today are only scratching at the surface of that matter is in fact 'unreal' illusion, not fixed and imperminent and subject to mutation and transformation and transmigration, the true scientists of matters 'real' and permanent and that which forms the very foundations and backdrop or 'true substance' of this external illusory shadow show, have known all along, except that they have always been persecuted for that so called 'subjective' knowledge by those untrue blind scientists and religious fundamentalists similar to those you find on this site. (and only due to that their lenses and means of perception are not limited by the sensual dictates of the blunt apparati of the innacurate models and procedures or the blinded metabolism of the short sighted physicists)

This blog is interesting


John Rory
I tried to leave a comment, but had to sign up to somwehere rather then leaving an anon response, which is as follows:

"Tho i latgely agree, some of your premises are questionable.

Firstly, i wonder how absolute any laws are including the laws of entropy? For ezample, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, what happens to the energy swallowed by a singularity or black hole?

Also, the conservation of energy only applies to a closed system, i.e. a finite universe, which conflict and makes slightly non-sensical your other questions as to 'what is transcendental' or 'what came before' such a closed universe. If an open system then presumably the laws of conservation fail. Either way it seems one of your premises must fail logically?

Also, your initial definition of Science does not contain its most important feature which distinguishes it from all other methods of explanation - evidence.

While phenomena may exist, they are not science until evidence is fortcoming. Something may be true, but not science. Science has never disputed this. Anything is possible, but just how probable it is, is a different story.

Sorry George
I have fixed the moderator comment setting, can you please post there now, i will be pleased to reply

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)


  • Welcome to the Church of the Churchless. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.
  • HinesSight
    Visit my other weblog, HinesSight, for a broader view of what's happening in the world of your Church unpastor, his wife, and dog.
  • BrianHines.com
    Take a look at my web site, which contains information about a subject of great interest to me: me.
  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • I Hate Church of the Churchless
    Can't stand this blog? Believe the guy behind it is an idiot? Rant away on our anti-site.