Magic! A Logical Impossibility

[Udayana]

...
  But direct experience isn't?!  Nice!
...

Direct experience - meaning certain emotional and mental states - everyone has these, in various flavors and forms, however because of their subjective and intimate nature science has made minimal progress in building causal/predictive models. We can and will continue to investigate using neuroscience and psychology. 

If people want to investigate using meditation and religious practice - that is fine by me as long as they don't call it science.

[Walter]

Direct experience - meaning certain emotional and mental states - everyone has these, in various flavors and forms, however because of their subjective and intimate nature science has made minimal progress in building causal/predictive models. We can and will continue to investigate using neuroscience and psychology. 

If people want to investigate using meditation and religious practice - that is fine by me as long as they don't call it science.

have you ever seen that program on telly with Yvette Fielding called Most Haunted . After many years of ghost hunting , they've NEVER found one , funny that.

[jeremyp]

What is logical about a tiny thing like a String vibrating in eleven dimensions and creating the universe?  If religious people had come up with that...you guys would have laughed your heads off!   

What is logical about it is that the mathematical model does not lead to a contradiction. Whether it is a good description of reality (which is what you are really complaining about) is another matter.

There is much more evidence for spirit and after-life (through NDE's) than there is for a String or parallel universes. And yet....Argument from Authority (Scientists) seems to be the name of the game...rather than evidence.

There's zero evidence for the afterlife. It's difficult to understand what evidence there is for "spirit" (yes he did sir) because there is no coherent definition of what it is.

[Sriram]

What is logical about it is that the mathematical model does not lead to a contradiction. Whether it is a good description of reality (which is what you are really complaining about) is another matter.
There's zero evidence for the afterlife. It's difficult to understand what evidence there is for "spirit" (yes he did sir) because there is no coherent definition of what it is.

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all.  Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot.  The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.

[Walter]

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all.  Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot.  The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.

This is a simple honest request
please show the evidence

that's it. That's all I ask , no arguments .

[torridon]

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all.  Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

Stop besmirching the word 'evidence'.  Whatever has it done to you that you should treat it thus ?

[SusanDoris]

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life. Many people just don't want to see it...that is all.  Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

No, because there is no phenomenon to be presented. And I am being pedantic, but remember I listen to posts and when  words are consistently used wrongly, it does make me wince after a while. 

The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot.  The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.

Not only is that wrong, but in my opinion that post has a strong air of pomposity about it.

[jeremyp]

There is plenty of evidence for an after-life.

Nope.

Many people just don't want to see it...that is all.  Instead of seeing the phenomena for what it is...you want the phenomena to present itself to you in a manner that you think is acceptable. That is not going to happen.

The manner I want the phenomenon to present itself in is verifiable. That's all I ask.

The more the scientific community ignores such evidence, the more it is likely to be ignored by the people in the years to come. Many people today are educated and confident enough to know how far science can go and where it cannot.  The word of the scientific community will no longer be 'God's' word, that it hitherto was.
[/quote]