Through conscious awareness yes. Told you that before. No need for any evidence from any one we can do it all by ourselves. But some say we need more than that.
No, not through "conscious awareness". Through finding evidence to either support or contradict it. I realize you don't understand science particularly well, but this is about as close to fundamental as you can get. If you can't even understand that science needs real evidence or else it's not actually science, then you have no business pretending you know anything about science to begin with.
A person can come to conclusions about themselves, through introspection and the like, but they shouldn't pretend that those conclusions are in any way scientific, because it's on a subject that's totally subjective in nature. It's not something you can get evidence about, which means it simply can't be scientific in the first place; science simply relies on evidence too heavily for it to be any other way.
Yes -- the hypothesis is that their is a God.
The problem is that it's based not on evidence, but because humans evolved to see patterns in things, even when they're not real patterns. Like when you look at a cloud and it seems to form shapes. That's your 'hypothesis'. But even if it were a good hypothesis, it wouldn't get anywhere without evidence - the same evidence you're busy trying to dismiss the need for. But that doesn't fly and never will, because you can't come to valid conclusions about the real world without it.
That's right..why else would they call it a science??
Given your apparent inability to understand that you cannot check someone's work unless you can reproduce exactly what they did, I am not holding out much hope in you understanding that this is the primary reason why I don't accept your statement that your gnostics are scientists. What they say, nobody else can check or test. It would be like having someone who had never heard of algebra checking an answer someone gave without showing their work.
Where did that come from -- where did anyone claim they did not experience what they said they experienced?
I said that because they're not scientists. Leaving that aside, how do you know that they experienced what they experienced? How do you know that it wasn't all some really vivid dream they had, which has no bearing on reality? Or that they weren't under the effects of some hallucinogenic drug, for that matter? If you can't experience it yourself, then you can't know that they did and certainly shouldn't assume that they're telling the full, unvarnished truth.
Glad we agree on what science is and also what conscious awareness is.
Stop it, dammit! Quit trying to act like I'm agreeing with you on this "conscious awareness" stuff you keep spewing! Honestly! I told you several times that I didn't agree with your ideas on it and I absolutely do not appreciate and will not tolerate you trying to act like I'm giving you any credence on it when I've told you plainly that I won't unless you provide the real evidence which would support your ideas.
Really? Do tell.
I've already told you. The 'self' is purely subjective. You cannot make a science out of something which is subjective, because science requires evidence which can be shared with others - meaning, it's objective. Otherwise, you just end up with a twisted mess of subjective interpretations which don't do anyone any good.
Of course -- we keep agreeing what science is.
Yet you keep trying to claim that something we cannot check under the same controlled conditions (anything to do with the 'self') is science. So we are not agreeing with what science is. What I think is happening is that you're reading what you want into what I say, so you can pretend that we're agreeing when we're actually not.
When you taste sugar it still tastes like sugar every time.
But how do you know that the actual taste of sugar is the same from person to person? I don't mean the generic "it tastes sweet", either, I mean how it specifically tastes. There's a difference between the chemical reactions caused by the taste receptors in the tongue - which we can test, and don't depend on subjective interpretations - and how things subjectively taste to us.
Really -- where was that line in the above?
I'm saying that it isn't a science, not that you can't find things out about yourself using it. Really, start reading what I say instead of trying to twist it.
Oh! - because you say so based on your beliefs ... sugar will always taste like sugar -- it is repeatable to the self aware.
No, I don't say so because of my 'beliefs', I say so because you're making unsupported statements and are now trying to play the tiresome old game of "you have beliefs too".
How do you know that how sugar tastes to me is identical to how sugar tastes to you? Saying that something tastes sweet only means that the taste receptors in the tongue react the same way from person to person. It doesn't mean that sugar tastes exactly the same to everyone. So no, your pretense at a "repeatable experiment" just failed miserably, because you can't repeat it and have the results come out the same no matter who does it (except in a purely general sense of tasting sweet). You can't control for all the possible variables, many of which involve specifics of biology that differ from person to person, not to mention upbringing and diet.