I prefer not to even say I am a "believer", there is something called first hand experience, knowing and then of course just good old observation.
Isn't that just anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously unscientific?
Scientific? Like the premise that we originated from a big bang?
Hey, the scientific method is great. But it also sets the rules on what is possible and what is impossible. In a sense, science sets rules and with those rules it
excludes things that don't fit its model. The thing is, science, as great as it is, is still growing. So, until science discovers more, it is dependent on the
variables it sets up to say what is possible and impossible. In a real world example, I would look into certain types of experiences that humans have
that are termed supernatural (or excluded in other ways.) Well, there needs to be instruments to measure some of these subtle energies employed in
the investigation. I do believe that is starting, but we are a long ways off as there is something at stake regarding the current "system".
The miraculous, which many of us have experienced, is generally not reproducible. Guess that means miracles don't happen (according to science).
There are many many flaws in science in these ways. It is valuable but at the same time it is being handcuffed.
most "miracles" are purely psychological disorders.
How can you say? How do you study things that are not reproducible? You are creating a rigid reality then.
Firsthand experience seems to be the only way to know, but you can't prove it (just like love). And when you look at the level of prozac (etc.) consumption and the reasons for it, I'd say more miracles, regardless of how/why, is very needed these days.
Luv to ya
