One sentence on Thought

[RJT]

I don’t think we can prove this sentence, but I am fairly certain that we cannot disprove it:

One witnesses a miracle when one witnesses one’s own thought.

Whether or not the miracle is from God is irrelevant here.

[theweatherman]

assuming things are true until disproven isnot good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
assuming things are true until disproven is not good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem to go fine under Philosophy ?

I am not totally illiterate, but my formal training in philosophy is not that extensive.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
assuming things are true until disproven is not good science, rather assume things are false until proven true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem to go fine under Philosophy ?

I am not totally illiterate, but my formal training in philosophy is not that extensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming something is true "because it has not been disproven" is pretty awful, whether you're talking about science, math, philosophy, or just about anything else.

As for your statement, I tend to agree. But the exact meaning of the word miracle is so varied within the English language that your statement doesn't really hold any weight, or have any usefulness.

Maybe what you could say instead is that people tend to overlook the extraordinary, even when it's sitting right in front of them. The most amazing things occur every day and most people don't even notice. We would probably be better off if we spent more time appreciating some of the wonderful things in this life, for example human thought.

[usmhot]

Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realises that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong. However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, taking a theory as true until it is disproved forms the very basis of science. In its strictest sense science admits to everything that has not been disproved.
Naturally, scientists would tend to dismiss any theory for which there is no real evidence and which does not accord with other accepted theories, but pushed to a decision a true scientist would ultimately admit that unless a given theory can be disproved it cannot be entirely dismissed.

In a sense, this forms one of the biggest stumbling blocks for scientists when debating about God, paranormal occurrences, supernatural abilities, etc. A true scientist realizes that most of these claims cannot, fundamentally, be disproved and, as a result, will not, in good conscience, simply say they are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how I understood science might be. Evidently, we have disagreement here on the board. You guys sort it out and let me know if science agrees with the above or the opposite.

[ QUOTE ]


However, he/she will discount them on the basis that there is virtually no substantial, repeatable evidence for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then I think we can say we have enough ‘repeatable evidence” : Every single thought of every person in the history of the world (and still counting). (I know my response isn't what you actually said. Just taking lliberties with your statement for rhetorical humor.)

[ QUOTE ]
However, despite claims to the contrary, this basic tenet does mean that science is actually the most open minded discipline.

[/ QUOTE ]

But, not totally open minded?

[J. Stew]

To Prove = to verify truth. What is truth except that which the consciousness can perceive. The 'One' in, "One witnesses a miracle when . . ." is one's consciousness.

So if You with Your consciousness witness your own thoughts, then you are seeing your thoughts from conciousness which is your true nature, which sees the reality/truth of everything it perceives.

So you will see truth for yourself when you are able to see your own thoughts. How can ultimate truth be explained in words. Only relative truths can be proven with statements of concepts. The more important thing is if you can observe your thoughts from your consciousness then you will see the truth for yourself and there will be no need to prove it.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
The more important thing is if you can observe your thoughts from your consciousness then you will see the truth for yourself and there will be no need to prove it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounded like total idiocy when I first read it.

After thinking about it some, I really like it. I even think I agree with you. Maybe.

[J. Stew]

What part is unclear.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
What part is unclear.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe it's particularly unclear. It is pretty deep, however. That may be why my initial reaction and current reaction to it are so different.