No, what that precisely is is saying "don't know." But thx for confirming your stance.
I was addressing the comments in your post, but clearly no point in belaboring this, moving on......
Yes, if you can't tell the difference between "You said" and "You think" it is likely best we move on.
LOL
Right. That image is a joke, as it obviously depends on people's opinions of when they were "madly in love"/etc. Hardly scientific. If Rutgers really put that out, they should hang their heads in shame.
What are your scientific qualifications and are they in relevant areas? Quite frankly I do not find your un-sourced brusque dismissal as credible over the research done by actual scientists.
Believe that if it makes you happy. The fact remains love cannot be scientifically proven and it is not at all measurable let alone provable (scientifically of course).
Actual scientists disagree with you. I will take their research over your out of hand dismissal.
I assume you mean ghosts, and I already did (though it applies to anything beyond our existence in this world): and it's just that, ie they are (assuming they exist that is; to me the jury is very much out) not some simple "scientific phenomena;' they are something beyond our world/universe/existence.
Do you know the difference between a claim and an explanation? Saying they are "something beyond our world/universe/existence" is a claim. Saying we are able to experience this because of X but science is unable to measure X is an explanation.
We know our senses only allow us to experience physical things in this universe. If, as you claim, ghosts are not a part of that we would not be able to experience them. You claim we can experience ghosts. To experience them we must either be able to sense things that are beyond somehow or they must interact with the physical universe in some fashion. Which is it?
Upvote
0