#cursal

I watched the Barbara Walters special "Heaven - where it is How will we get there?" Last night. By this time two special, Barbara Walters interviewed a number of people about their belief (or not) in the existence of heaven. She also interviewed a scientist who responded to the assertion that the sky (from people who have had a near death experience) may seem very real to these people, but is actually the result of a dying brain. Therefore, the sky does not really exist. Barbara Walters himself does not offer its own vision, which I appreciate, but do not see the opinion of scientists who can provide different scientific opinions. Not all scientists agree that the sky is not and can not be explained with a simple tests.Just because a scientist believes it is "proof" of something does not a fact. Some scientists believe that the popular belief that science is as advanced as it should be. Some scientists also seem to believe that everything in the universe can be explained with current scientific knowledge known and that everything can fit in a pretty package is little that can be packaged as a gift and delivered as fact. These scientists seem to believe that there is nothing outside of our known universe. Therefore, if you believe that heaven is outside of our known universe, some scientists think it means that your idea of paradise would not possible.In my opinion, these types of scientists are simply closed-minded. Science is imperfect. Science consists of facts and theories. Scientists learn "facts" and theories in school, and to test these theories, and to challenge the facts for years. There are unknown variables that we just have not thought of or discovered yet. It can be scary for some scientists to believe that science could be imperfect or incomplete.Scientists may begin to fall into the trap of trying to adapt to each test and each event they observe, in an explanation based on creed accepted scientific theories. Do they rejoice at the thought that they can be like everyone to know? I worked with these types of scientists that "science has all the complex answers. Personally, I think trying to answer questions with spiritual spiritual experience limited, although there may be a scientist, is a mistake. Have the greatest scientific minds think this way? I do not think. Pioneers in all fields of science has created the concept of trial and error that is still practiced today. How to see new possibilities is to have an open mind. Why try to disprove the existence of heaven? Attempt to refute anything, nothing spiritual in particular, does not offer the possibilities of a new discovery.The truth, there are always unknown variables. It is virtually impossible to know all the variables with certainty, or even know all the causes and effects of various events. Watching a program on paper, an event may seem to cause another event. But what about the possibility that the second event caused the event first? What if two events seem to always coincide, but the two events are actually caused by a third party, an event to be discovered? What if there are other, unknown in the mix? What if everything is just a big coincidence? Personally, I would start with the idea that anyone anything ever thought, or think is possible. Since it is impossible to know with certainty, all variables in the known universe and possibly unknown, it is difficult or impossible to absolutely refute anything beyond a reasonable doubt. There may be impossibilities, but these things we may never know, because we are imperfect beings who will probably never understand what it means to me know.For, heaven, God, and even ghosts may be possible. We humans simply can not be able to understand how or why. The fun of science is to enable and to explore new ideas that can change our world for the better, even if these ideas can be outside currently accepted scientific knowledge. I think trying to prove something like the sky is impossible, and it is not helpful. People of faith will not believe you anyway, and anyone who agrees with you does not need convincing.