Scientific proof that God exists?

[Decksperiment]

Tell him to stop then pmsl...

[1715112825]

1715112825

[1715112825]

1715112825

[Seketsuna]

Tell him to stop then pmsl...

why would he do that?

[Decksperiment]

…the rules that allowed this society to get as far in advancement as we have become…

"Advancement" is a matter of change (which creates information). Rules serve to constrain entropy (which begets change). Therefore, it is within spite of those "rules" (as seen with Galileo) that your "advancement" (even ancients knew "flight") has proven known humanity.

Meaning?

Cant you just do this thread from your head rather than using external scource's?

What, of that post, have you not comprehood?

Am fi the hood pal, I understood the lot to the point I realised you missed it

Ie, you never got anywhere, as in to ANY point?

My post was posed within a likeness of that classical frame termed "Aristotelian syllogism."

Like this you mean? Pmsl..

"If, as Aristole said, it be the mission of tragedy to cleanse and exalt us, leaving us
subdued with a sense of pity and hope and fortified against ill fortune, it is permitted us
to add that in simplicity, in depth and power, in its grasp of the realities of the life of
man, its portrayal of the stupidi of evil and the splendour of virtue, its revelation of that
in our humanity which leads it to defy itself, rather than defame, defile or betray its moral
integrity, and in its prophecy of the victory of light over shadow, there is not another
drama known among man like the Third Degree of Masonry."

Imagine that coming from the 'dark brothers': Freemasonry. Never devided were they in the past.

Could be just another Con's Piracy..

They sold their soul for success in this life, at the cost of over 50% of other lifeforms of this planet in the past 50 years. They are obligated upon pain of death to prevent in any shape form or fashion, of the knowledge transmitted all over the internet and are breaking their oath, and as prescribed, should be buried up to the head at low tide by their own laws. Just for allowing said transmissions to be taking place. They are incapable of seeing the light of the darkness they bring. It is wrong. Period.

Edit: What if the person they're all expecting knows everything done in his name and is pissed of that it cost so much life? What if he decides to use the word to just end it all cause he agree's with at least one person who is a victim of their's?

What if every other lifeform was supposed to be protected by us instead of wiped out? And he decide's, we are the threat to every other lifeform? And decide's just to wipe out humanity, cause you thought he would'nt?

[username18333]

…the rules that allowed this society to get as far in advancement as we have become…

"Advancement" is a matter of change (which creates information). Rules serve to constrain entropy (which begets change). Therefore, it is within spite of those "rules" (as seen with Galileo) that your "advancement" (even ancients knew "flight") has proven known humanity.

Meaning?

Cant you just do this thread from your head rather than using external scource's?

What, of that post, have you not comprehood?

Am fi the hood pal, I understood the lot to the point I realised you missed it

Ie, you never got anywhere, as in to ANY point?

My post was posed within a likeness of that classical frame termed "Aristotelian syllogism."

Like this you mean? Pmsl..

"If, as Aristole said, it be the mission of tragedy to cleanse and exalt us, leaving us
subdued with a sense of pity and hope and fortified against ill fortune, it is permitted us
to add that in simplicity, in depth and power, in its grasp of the realities of the life of
man, its portrayal of the stupidi of evil and the splendour of virtue, its revelation of that
in our humanity which leads it to defy itself, rather than defame, defile or betray its moral
integrity, and in its prophecy of the victory of light over shadow, there is not another
drama known among man like the Third Degree of Masonry."

Imagine that coming from the 'dark brothers': Freemasonry. Never devided were they in the past.

Could be just another Con's Piracy..

They sold their soul for success in this life, at the cost of over 50% of other lifeforms of this planet in the past 50 years. They are obligated upon pain of death to prevent in any shape form or fashion, of the knowledge transmitted all over the internet and are breaking their oath, and as prescribed, should be buried up to the head at low tide by their own laws. Just for allowing said transmissions to be taking place. They are incapable of seeing the light of the darkness they bring. It is wrong. Period.

Edit: What if the person they're all expecting knows everything done in his name and is pissed of that it cost so much life? What if he decides to use the word to just end it all cause he agree's with at least one person who is a victim of their's?

What if every other lifeform was supposed to be protected by us instead of wiped out? And he decide's, we are the threat to every other lifeform? And decide's just to wipe out humanity, cause you thought he would'nt?

Therewithin, projection proves known by that notion of "'mission' known 'tragedy.'"

[vokain]

Knowing that it's happened before, the 'One' might be aware enough to sidestep that whole hypothetical scenario by simply ingratiating Oneself into said group, no? That's what the Age of Aquarius seems to be all about to me. Any two drops of water—have them touch, what happens?

And what if the guy was'nt interested in being a part of the most destructive society in all existance?

True. He was more interested in converting it away from destruction.  

And the Karma cop taught him not to interfere.

Of course, that didn't stop him from interfering more, and then overcoming.  

You missed the point? The cop shot the guy.. dead.. to serve and to protect huh? yeah, protect masons, no-one else, and they wont even acknowledge the man shot just might have been the 'second coming'

What does it matter when someone dies? Perhaps in that death might be the greatest promoter of novel discord (progress) anyway, as I am increasingly beginning to think that we all serve as 'the One' to each other in some manner at least at some point during our time here.

“How many times... have you encountered the saying, 'When the student is ready, the Master speaks?' Do you know why that is true? The door opens inward. The Master is everywhere, but the student has to open his mind to hear the Master's Voice.”

edit:

Lucy to me was a good film, now look for the egyptian picture of the the scene of judgment featuring anubis as he weigh's the soul against the heart, using the feather of truth, on top of the scale's sit's the monkey..

The scribe.. keeper of the akhasic record's.. thoth to be precise.

as if right on queue, while I was listening, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rAOyh7YmEc
edit2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUkw7M5Ptio

[Decksperiment]

21% lol...

[BADecker]

Huh? The scientific proof of God is in the fact that we found the Higgs Boson. Now that we have found this elusive, little particle, just ask Steven Hawking what he calls it. The God particle. It'll be an interesting day if they ever find two of them at the same time. There probably is only ONE in the whole universe.

[cooldgamer]

Huh? The scientific proof of God is in the fact that we found the Higgs Boson. Now that we have found this elusive, little particle, just ask Steven Hawking what he calls it. The God particle. It'll be an interesting day if they ever find two of them at the same time. There probably is only ONE in the whole universe.

The name 'The God Particle' has absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving a god.  The name was given based on this book.

Many physicists also think that there may be more than one type of Higgs Boson: http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/physical_sciences/physicists-indicate-existence-of-multiple-higgs-bosons

[BADecker]

Huh? The scientific proof of God is in the fact that we found the Higgs Boson. Now that we have found this elusive, little particle, just ask Steven Hawking what he calls it. The God particle. It'll be an interesting day if they ever find two of them at the same time. There probably is only ONE in the whole universe.

The name 'The God Particle' has absolutely nothing to do with proving/disproving a god.  The name was given based on this book.

Many physicists also think that there may be more than one type of Higgs Boson: http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/physical_sciences/physicists-indicate-existence-of-multiple-higgs-bosons

Oh drat. And it was starting to sound so good, too.   

[BADecker]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

[username18333]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

See this following:

Can your brain not calculate the common factor of these:

Ego is none.  Ego is fear.  Ego is death.  Ego is doubt.  Ego is random.

("Ego" is Freudian)

0 ÷ 0 = −0

Are you talking about Sigmund Freud?  His model is a fraud.

us t is + and -.  Duality.  Yin and yang.  Ego and soul.

Indeed, "0 ÷ 0 = −0" speaks to that, saying, "An absolute quantity of groups of no quantity may prove derived therefrom."

(Speaking more to specifics, "Ego" and "Soul" are both constraints upon entropy [as indicated by their being specific somethings as opposed to indeterminate somethings] and, thus, are constraints upon what it is that one may be [that is, that quantity of states one may come to occupy].)

Comprehension of participation may prove had within an ignorance of those participant thereto correspondent.

[the joint]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

[username18333]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

[the joint]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

[This man, on one hand, believes that he knows something, while not knowing (anything). On the other hand, I — equally ignorant — do not believe (that I know anything).]

(Emphasis mine.)

Entropy within may have one know those state termed "knowledge." (A "knowledge" of that proves "wisdom.")

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

Edit:  I see you edited your post to something semantically fun.  Give me some time on that one.

[username18333]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

(That post was recomposed prior your reply.)

One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)

[BADecker]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly.

That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof.

Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way.

However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible.

[username18333]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

I believe that every able-bodied human has the capacity to understand everything that is necessary for him to understand, and that the reason this is true is that the most "true" interpretation of reality is that which is directly experienced and therefore independent of rationale and abstraction.  I believe that this is the only sort of information that can be absolutely known (i.e. known through direct and perfect means, which is different than knowing through indirect means such as evidence or 'proof').

I believe that you are close to right, if not right exactly.

That still doesn't answer the question of scientific proof.

Salvation by believing in Jesus is the only way. That salvation comes through reading or hearing the Word of God, only... no other way.

However, since God created the workings of the universe through speaking them into being, there just might be a whole lot of people who will hear God's word even though they don't read the Bible, and are saved anyway. BUT, BUT, BUT, don't depend on this for salvation. After all, hearing the Word of God through nature doesn't present very much clarity. Read and believe the Bible.

A more entropic "God" could counter that more entropy anemic one as well.

[the joint]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

(That post was recomposed prior your reply.)

One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)

Complex response:  Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have.  Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently,   The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science.  

Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it.  Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it.   The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions).

Simple response:  

warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat.

Yes, you feel warmth.  Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold.  Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable.  It's bad science.

[username18333]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

(That post was recomposed prior your reply.)

One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)

Complex response:  Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have.  Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently,   The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science.  

Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it.  Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it.   The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions).

Simple response:  

warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat.

Yes, you feel warmth.  Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold.  Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable.  It's bad science.

See this following:

Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

[the joint]

Does anybody really think that if the method that the universe was made happened to be revealed, that there is anybody that could even understand it? The whole universe is so extremely complex, that nobody could understand what he was looking at if he saw the way or the thing that caused the universe to come into being. The universe is THAT complex. Finding Higgs, be there one or many, is like finding a drop of water in the ocean when compared with what the ocean is and what exists therein.

Keep on playing.

Nothing (that is, "no thing") is "experienced" but "perceived."

I used to think things like "I know nothing," until I realized how stupid it was.  Now, I basically ignore anyone who adamantly states that you can't really know anything.

I personally distinguish between two kinds of knowledge:  1) That which can be known directly through experience, and 2) that which can be known indirectly through evidence/proof.

To use an example, the former would be like feeling the warmth of the sun on your face and knowing that it is warm out, while the latter is like looking at a thermometer and seeing that it's 85 degrees outside and concluding that it is warm outside.  When you directly feel the warmth of the sun on your face, there is no rationale required to know and understand what is there; more specifically, direct experience occurs when a subject unifies with an object such that they are indistinguishable (this is even reflected in our language when we say things like, "I am warm").  In contrast, rationale is an absolute necessity to make sense out of a thermometer reading, and the only way you can assert it is warm is if you know that there are temperatures much lower than 85 degrees by having evidenced them; 'ratio' is the root word of 'rationale.'

Inasmuch as logic is a closed system with recognizable boundaries and rules, it's not only possible to know something, but it's possible to know something absolutely and perfectly in an absolutely perfect, logical way.  But, no matter how perfectly logical it is, it will always be different than the knowledge gained through direct experience.

(That post was recomposed prior your reply.)

One does not "[feel] the warmth"; one's body absorbs infrared light. (That you would refer to the later as the former illustrates that you are privy most wholly to that really born of conception within Homo sapien mind and not that therewithout.)

Complex response:  Absorbing infrared light is an interpretation based upon the amount of evidence we've acquired from the technology we have.  Before we knew what infrared light was, it was interpreted differently,   The problem, however, is we don't know where the limit of evidence and rational interpretation ends, so it's still an arbitrary interpretation, albeit relatively less arbitrary than if we were limited to the same evidence available to mankind pre-science.  

Let me also point out that your experience self-evidently comes prior to your explanation of it.  Accordingly, there *must* be some information or knowledge that you take away from that experience so that you can fit an abstract model to it.   The model is a deconstruction of a thing that you experienced in a more comprehensive way (your model can never be more comprehensive than your experience of an event and the evidence you pull from it; if it were, it'd be a priori unsound as it would imply the existence of unknown assumptions).

Simple response:  

warmth
wôrmTH/Submit
noun
the quality, state, or sensation of being warm; moderate and comfortable heat.

Yes, you feel warmth.  Warmth is inherently relative, and so you know when you feel warm and not cold.  Science routinely oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain subjective feelings solely in terms of what's externally observable.  It's bad science.

See this following:

Since it could not, prior limakasidian entropism, be conclusively demonstrated that anything existed beyond one's own mind, scientific evidence was accepted by faith and, therefore, was not proof.

However, as revealed below, one may now proceed beyond solipsism unto a belief in a literal everything without yielding unto faith.

These are interesting perspectives; however, it would seem His entropism has not been heard.

Entropism, dervied from solipsism, starts at the belief that nothing exists beyond one's own mind. From their, it then proceeds to assert that the sentience of that mind deomonstrates the existence of that required for it - some tendancy or tendancy to become less orderly, the consciousness occupied another state. From there, it is then postulated that this/these tendencies, begetting entropy, could, in having propagated a state of a mind out of nothing, are sufficient for some form of ex nihilo generation.

From this, entropism proceeds unto an absolute tendancy to become less orderly. In considering this, and the capabilities of those tendancies previously mentioned, it is determined that absolute entropy of this tendancy would prove sufficient for ex nihilo generation of everything, including its own self.

From that, it is determined, within entropism, that, by an absolute tendancy to become less orderly, the sum of existence is absolute entropy.

Where did you get this from?  Are these your own words?  I'm genuinely curious.