sabastious : My first attempt at answering your challenge (my post #241) seems to have gone by the way side. I was merely trying to show how futile your premise is by showing another equally futile but similar premise using the I'll-show-you-mine-if-you-show-me-yours scenario. So, I said to your "The universe was created by an intelligent being", " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. "
I tried to illustrate the principle involved in this argument on a different thread that Terry posted titled " Can we look at FAITH in a more practical way?", to which you made a sizable contribution. So now, I felt compelled to read through this entire thread in order to gather as much information about what it is you really intend to establish with your premise.
You spoke of the "scientific method". Since it consists of "systematic observation", then your "vision" must be positively myopic. That is why the data you take in is flawed. Your observations (at least many of the ones you stated here) are not based on testable points. You may fail to understand that your our own "senses" can fool you and that is why you need to not make hasty assumptions or any assumptions at all when none are forthcoming. By your words, your scientific method goes like this:
"Systematic observation" - You listen to your senses telling you there must be an intelligent superior being, which senses are define by an intelligent superior being, namely God. So -- that you have senses must mean there is a God.
"Measurements" - You constantly measure phenomenon (each of all possible phenomena that you ever encounter and compare each to one, many or all possible phenomena that you ever encountered, the process of which (the comparison?) must be logical and consistent. If measurements change, so do your conclusions (even though you and you alone assume your process to be logical and consistent. Sounds like a job for IBM's Watson!
"Experiment, formulation, testing and hypothesis" - This explanation of yours is a rehashing of the previous explanations with the added "unclassic" scientific view you and you alone seem to posses, one contrary to the "classic" scientist who with the scientific method you seem to partially uphold will discover photosynthesis but not electromagnetism and the quantum field and who will stop asking question and testing results when his bias takes him to an expected conclusion.
You suggest that this bias is what hides information of the subject which the very critique by other scientists is trying to uncover via a peer review. And you figured all this out via your trained systematic powers of observation and your careful measurements of not only all of those scientific subjects but also via a thorough investigation of the peer review process.
OK. So if you're going to say to me that that's not how you judge everything but that you merely say that to suggest one possibility, I will agree that there exists such a possibility. But while and until you show some examples that establish a trend, you can't establish that argument as a premise for your next argument, namely that you must be right in whatever you say next because you've suggested a different way things can go.
By your very words: " my goal is to have spiritual ideas that are perfectly compatible with both Religion and Science" you have found yourself guilty of what you say some "classical" scientists do, looking to prove or disprove something and then stopping any further search when they find the answer that suits them. You have preconceptions that cloud your understanding of what others are trying to say to you here.
Earlier I wrote (on my post #241 to your premise "The universe was created by an intelligent being.": " I will prove it to you as soon as you can identify or prove that 'an intelligent being' capable of such actually exists. Otherwise, what you're asking is moot." Your reply was: " An intelligent (self-aware) being capable of creating an explosion using Higgs-like quantum particles to create the existence you and I reside within."
OK. So, break down that answer for me, using the scientific method (yours if you like and not the "classic" one) and explain how your response constitute a reasonable answer. If you think that by this exercise we're straying off topic, then at least consider that the topic as you defined it involves many, many, pieces of data derived from "systematic observation", and yes, not just your observation. That is the thing about science and the scientific method: we must have the same common observation in order for all of us to reach the same or any conclusion.
I don't understand why you're hung up on the "Goddamn" particle. Since they sort of cleaned up the name, which was originally intended to ascribe to it its illusiveness, you might not feel or deduce the same if they called it the F*#@ing particle, 'cause it just is so damned stubborn.
You say: " It's not a mistake to make a claim and provide what one feels to be sufficient evidence for belief " Then, in the same post you say: " You are only appealing to the logic you presented in accordance with the evidence provided (which I have not provided ALL evidence I have) ". My systematic observations of many of your statements reveal a noticeable inconsistency in your position. You beg to establish a conclusion, the one about Einstein's religiosity and then tell us that you haven't provided all of the evidence for it.
You say: " The scientific method was not created by science, it was refined into the model it is today by scientists. " According to the article in Wikipedia, "The development of the scientific method is inseparable from the history of science itself ." That is true not because it's in Wikipedia, but because there is evidence of the scientific influences that helped develop it. Then you say: " Many scientists claim that these [inexplicable] feats [from shamans] are frauds " without providing examples or for instances of those scientists to support your statements.
I know you've made your systematic observations and therefore feel free to make such a statement. But you must realize that the rest of us need to examine those observations (consider us your peer review) and test if they are correct or not. Some have been brought to light here, with which you seem to disagree. Well, you should pick one and let us hammer out what does or doesn't make sense about it. I'm sorry, but I don't see you very willing to do that.
You have built quite an edifice inside your head about the "world" and what really lies in it. I see a decided construct where God relates prominently in it. That is perfectly OK. If you must justify it, please understand that other people may not see it or reason it you your way. So, do the arguing for yourself and not for others. That only brings conflict when your world comes clashing with everyone else's (as I'm gathering from this discussion). It would seem that you have a strong sense of the spiritual and need to justify it. Many people just accept it and don't question it. Other can't help but challenge non-logical assumptions about our existence.
I must admit that one reason I kept on reading the thread was to see what picture EntirelyPossible was going to come up with next depicting pants on fire. I was cracking up. I hope you took the jest without insult. Since the subject was brought up about some personal condition you're experiencing, I would like to suggest that (in the most innocuous way and without any disrespect intended), that perhaps your condition is unduly influencing perception.
I also think that it is perfectly OK and that because of your condition your personality can actually result in a very unique individual with an exceptional point of view. But my observation is that you probably need to rein in that point of view because, in my opinion, it really is not representative of what others consider logical and reasonable. I'm not saying we need to put a chill on discourse. What I am saying is that if we're going to engage in discourse, we need to do it using the same set of rules. While you're kinda out-there, using your internal set of rules based on your personal observations, it may not be possible to reason with others on the same level.