Yeah, so you want physical evidence. For obvious reasons that is something of a problem... However... There is an exercise you can do which teaches you this stuff. You can meditate.

Meditation is commonly misunderstood. Relaxation is just a by-product of meditating. When you meditate you become relaxed. But relaxing isn't the reason for meditation. All you are trying to do when you meditate is concentrate. We are trying to develop our concentration... Every one of buddhas lessons is aimed at helping us develop concentration. And apparently when we perfect our concentration, through meditation, we reach enlightenment.

To meditate you simply concentrate on any of the five senses. Then, when your mind wonders, you bring it back... I do it with vision so I just look. When I get distracted I pull my awareness back to whatever I'm looking at.

You go into these awesome 'hallucinations', waking dreams, but they are far more than that. You can do all sorts by meditating. You can learn about anything you want by just concentrating on it. Or you can do this thing where you almost step beyond the sense itself and find yourself wondering in the spirit world.

When you meditate by simply concentrating on one of your five senses, what are you wondering about before you bring it back?

When you find yourself in the spirit world after stepping beyond the sense itself, what are you wondering about?

I meant wondering as in strolling, exploring, not considering.

You can't cognise in the same way when your that deep. You are still aware. But you don't seem to be able to reflect or plan, you are just aware of the present. Any kind of thought seems to bring you out of it.

Apparently, if you can concentrate on all five senses and on thoughts all together then when you enter this 'spirit world' you will be there 'more'. And so perhaps you will be able to think clearly then?? I have no idea as that is far more difficult to do.

... I'm not certain about any of this stuff. I'm on the same page as Socrates, "The only thing you can be certain of is that you cannot be certain of anything". To be completely honest, my understanding is slightly different. I think, "The only way you can be certain of anything is if you understand everything". And I am certainly not some monk who spent his whole life meditating either!

You want facts, but to me, if you call it a fact your putting too much trust in the knowledge. Believing that something is true is far better than knowing it's true. Unless you've cracked everything!

Oh, you meant wandering?

Yeah lol

That's because 99% of the population was religious. Clear example of that flawed logic!

Logically you can't rule out the possibility of a God however unlikely, there is still that chance that God exists.

While it can be logical to believe God exists I don't think it is healthy to live a life as if God actually exists. It would be nice if he did exist but living your life as if he does is not logical at all.

Can you imagine Science doing that! As an example we believe that this piece of tin can fly us from America over the ocean to the UK. We believe it so much that it must be true, well you all know how that's going to end! You can believe it all you want, you can believe it will fly but at the end of the day, belief means nothing, if you have not proven it logically, tested it and made sure it is working, you won't know for certain.

That's exactly why Science and Religion don't go hand in hand, with science you have to know 100% before take off, with religion you need to know 0% before take off!

Science is 100% logic while religion is 0% logic?

I can not disprove the existence of God but I also can't point to anything not even a tiny slither of existence of God. He is doing a very good job of proving he does not exist though, I'll give him that!

Going back to logic and religion. As I stated while it might be logical to believe, it would be bat**** crazy to actually live a life as if he existed. I mean we have 0% proof of his existence, so why then live your life as if he exists? Aren't you just taking things too far? Isn't that just wishful thinking?

Unless all religious people have experienced something else than what I have experienced throughout life then I take my words back but if I am right and we experience the same, which implies that they and I have 0% evidence of God actually existing then I would go so far as to call them A. Crazy and B. Illogical.

There's really nothing more to it. You can say, well I believe in this unproven scientific claim I have, it will change the world and I will get very rich. Are you suddenly going to live your life as if you are very rich? You think banks will now lend you $10 million for your dream house because you have such a strong belief your unproven claim will indeed make you very rich?

To me it's exactly the same as with God. I hope he exists (I hope my scientific claim will make me rich), I'll probably win the powerball x100 in heaven but I am not going to live my life as if that's going to be the case, well at least not until I have some sort of evidence!

Here's a couple of questions:
1.Would it be a good thing if God actually existed? I can think of a lot of plus points there must be some negatives as well.
2.While I hope he exists and that I get rewarded in heaven, why does he not reward me here on earth, when I need it most?

This is a pretty clumsy use of the word "science."

Cool bro! Did you understand what I meant though? I think that is far more important rather than trying to nitpick my post.

I think that if you want to be understood, you should use language precisely. I don't expect that inserting my own views about things like religion and science will lead to a reasonable interpretation of your statements.

For example, a claim such as "science is 100% logic" is grossly unscientific and suggests you don't actually know that much about science.

Cool bro! Keep flying your imaginary airplane that you created without being 100% certain it will get you from point a to b.

Every time I get in a plane, car, or even if I'm just walking around, I'm not 100% certain of getting from point a to point b. This is a scientifically accurate claim.

Your ideas are not. But you know, pretending to know about science is 100% exactly like knowing science, right?

Cool bro, you are missing the point! Go back and read it again. Your analogy does not fit in with my post.

Do you disagree with anything else, or with the overall message at all?

So when you say...

And I say...

You're going to tell me that the analogy doesn't fit?

The overall message that you're super anti-religion and pro-quasi-scientific claims? I think it's a pretty silly message.

Cool bro, that's good to know!

Believing that an intelligent designer created this universe is a lot more
logical to me than believing that "nothing" created the universe, like
deluded scientists like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings teach, and
ignorant worshipers who worship them, lap it up like mindless lemmings.

Dawkins: "(The nothing that created the universe) is much simpler than
a creative intelligence"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA

Why do you think he thinks it is much simpler?

What illogical about saying you dont know how the universe got here?

Nothing at all.

But that's not what Dawkins, Hawking and others are saying.

Hawking:
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing"

Dawkins:
"The nothing that created the universe is much much simpler than a creative intelligence"

"In his latest book, A Universe from Nothing, Krauss claims to demonstrate how quantum gravity not only allows our universe and other universes to pop into existence out of nothing (that is, without the agency of a divine being), but that quantum gravity actually appears to require nothing. Needless to say, such assertions are certain to gain Krauss even more fame and notoriety.

A Universe from Nothing is being touted as a game-changer in the debate over God’s existence. In the afterword for Krauss’ book, outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins boasts that just as Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species delivered “biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism,” so, too, Lawrence Krauss has delivered from physics “the knockout blow” against “the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’”1 The book has also garnered glowing endorsements from Sam Harris (another famous atheist) and such notable physicists as Mario Livio, Frank Wilczek, and Martin Rees.

In the flyleaf, the publisher writes that Krauss has provided an “antidote to outmoded philosophical and religious thinking,” and a “game-changing entry into the debate about the existence of God and everything that exists.” The same flyleaf quotes Krauss, “Forget Jesus, the stars died so you could be born.” Hence, it is no surprise that Krauss and his new book have become the weapon of choice by committed atheists in their quest to rid humanity of belief in God. "

What do they got to do with my atheism and the box you put us in.

Why do you wrongly assume I put all atheists in a box?

Your words over the years.

I get the impression that atheists in here put me in a box,
that I'm YEC, non-scientific thinker, non-critical thinker, irrational,
illogical...

Maybe both sides could be better about not generalizing about
the other side?

If you're a YEC then the other 4 you mention also apply to you.

How do you go from 'the universe may have a creator' to the belief that the bible is the inspired word of that creator?

Sure I'd agree.