I make no protest, I merely repeat my personal experiences, and submit that anyone can verify whether or not those experiences are able to be proven. They can be proven by anyone who is willing to do the labwork. No one is able to verify a scientific theory on theory alone, labwork, or objective proof is required to satisfy the scientific creed. So what is unscientific about the practice and application of faith? For you it is theory only, for me it is science. For those who whish to move beyond theory, practice is available to anyone. You definitively define what you believe is a definitive statement, as if it were a fact, and it may be a fact to you, but that certainly doesn't make it a fact for others. When a scientist is unable to quantify and objectify something, for him it becomes subjective. The key point is that it become "subjective in his mind only" not universally. History has shown what scientists once thought to be subjective experience became objective as science was able to penetrate deeper into the layers of subtle material existence. The reality is all that you can truly say: "Based on the objective knowledge I possess at this time, and the means available to me to gather further information, I can neither objectively verify or deny the truth of that man's personal experience, nor conclude necessarily that his experience would be valid for me, without having the personal experience myself." The statements I made are absolutely objectively definitive from my perspective, and subjective definitive from your point of view----your opinion based on the criteria you set forth and your point of view. You are setting forth the criteria, not I. What you see as opinion, I see as a personal fact.....as my point of view is a fact for me, as much of a fact as knowing whether or not at any given time one is lucid, dreaming, hallucinatory, or in a heightened enlightened state of mind. That you have a need to clarify and define a personal experience as either opinion, fact, or folly from your perspective with such continued vigor is simply an obsession.....that is a fact for me. Of course anyone can verify for themselves whether or not my statements are fact for themselves. They may simply do the labwork for themselves.
Optional, Why are you continuing this.? What's the agenda? I have never said and will never say anyone should not practice their faith. All I said was a definitive statement is by it's very nature is requiring verification. What is your problem. You can make a definitive statement and you may consider it to be true but that is not what definitive statements suggest or are made for. Anyone who makes definitive statement is quite legitimately open to query. Your definitive statements by your own admission are only to be taken as your opinion. There it is. The standard of verification you use is now known. So ok ! Therefore their definition is known to be personal and subjective. Where's the problem ?. Such long protestations over a simple point. What's up? Is your lab work looking incomplete or flawed somewhere and you need to react ?
What you call protestations, I call testaments. You have devoted how much time and how many post to making a simple point, yet I have the agenda here? Does labwork require practice to gain verification, of course it does, that is why it is called labwork. Each and every science has two elements, theory and practice. Anyone is free to accept or reject any theory, or chose to verify the theory through practice. The practice that is required for a mathematical proof is the use of mathematics. To measure and quantify the physical world, physical instruments are used. The practice that is required for a proof of faith is faith. When a logician is able to prove that logic is correct without using logic, he will be able to climb above the faithful who sincerely say that the proof of their experience is in their faith, and that anyone can have the same experience if they choose to walk down the same path they have followed. Until the logician can do otherwise, he is just a faithful man practicing his logical practices with full faith and confidence. That he chooses to reject faith of a different kind, and limit himself to only that which is measurable by current scientific equipment or the limits of his own mental faculties, is of course his choice. However, he can never know that his faith is correct any more than he can know that someone elses faith is incorrect. Truly, all he can say is "it works for me."
Getting surreal now ? Yes you have an agenda. My answer was eventually supplied to me on page 24. Yet you insist on continuing. I do not require proof of your faith. You have said it is subjective opinion. nuff said. I find myself in Elite Chit Chat room I make a determination by way of a definitive statement. "God is not true and worse... religions associated with the God thing idea are fake" I now expect no one to question how I know this or how I can prove it. Someone asks, how do you verify your statement. Response: what's wrong with not believing in a faith. ......How can you prove with science that my statement is not true....... Science doesn't know much anyway Someone asks: you made a definitive statement, how do you verify it Response: I don't have to. I am entitled to my opinion. Response: Now I understand. Verification for your statement is made by nothing more than your own subjective belief. The above to my mind summarizes this rather simple point. The definitive statements you made need only to be proven or be known to be subjective belief. If I don't see such verification I would ask. Once you say - and you need only say once - that it is your opinion, then verification is known. If you just want to post statements and have no one respond it leaves very little room for interesting dialog . I would say there are interesting points on how religion attaches itself to almost everything in an attempt to prove itself and disprove the things it attaches to. Yet science for one thing must stand on it's own feet and refer to best observable verification for clarification ,progress and the search for truth, in an attempt to make sure humanity doesn't fool itself all the time I see you are becoming as obsessive as Max on this. You continue to return to protesting your faith when all I asked for was a simple clarification . Unlike RS7 did with Max I will leave you to it. Just be careful how you practice in the lab, you can blow yourself up.
For someone who claims no agenda, what is the point you are spending so much time trying to make? If you got the answer you were looking for some time ago, why do you continue to respond? Yet science for one thing must stand on it's own feet and refer to best observable verification for clarification ,progress and the search for truth, in an attempt to make sure humanity doesn't fool itself all the time. Your opinions, certainly not "objective" facts. Science depends on the observation of the senses, faith depends on the observation of the inner senses. That you embrace the experience of science based on sensual perception and deny the validity of other forms of human experience to define reality is your option. If you have a need to define others according to your beliefs, feel free to do so. It has no bearing on the truth of a situation. I see you are becoming as obsessive as Max on this. You continue to return to protesting your faith when all I asked for was a simple clarification . Unlike RS7 did with Max I will leave you to it. Now you are using arguments ad hominum, comparing my responses to you like those of Max to RS7, as a means to support your opinions of my posts or my mental state? How scientific and objective.