Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

sorry, but your barking up the wrong family tree. We are most closely related to chimps and bonobos

 

with every single word having had very similar experiences and it pretty well sums up my current position as well.

 

The original Monterey cost money and even the free Woodstock paid the artists, I do not think capatalists pursuits necessarily defines 'apathy' for an event. The ethos and spirit of Burning Man are clearly anything but apathetic. Perhaps a 'square' might not understand this but I'm at a loss how anyone with some of the claims you are making would think so...

Is this event at Burning Man for the sellouts?

 

5 billion proofs of what exactly? Gods or tendencies or beneficial superstitious survival instincts? How many are left when you cancel out all the Gods at war with each other, or that simply contradict each other?

Just because a large percentage of people believe something does not make it true. Scientific truths are held to much higher standards than common beliefs. Without scientific proofs, common beliefs are completely irrelevant and outside the realms of real science. Until someone can create a scientific proof for God then there is no place for it within science. God creation is not even a valid theory let alone fact. Humans tend to believe what they want to believe. It's called confirmation bias, THIS is an actual scientifically observable and verifiable fact of human nature. Your very argument is an example of confirmation bias.

As for evolution, there is a vast preponderance of corresponding evidence that confirms evolution to be a scientific fact, to deny this reality is just blatant ignorance.

 

Well I'm basing it off of the fact that even original Burning Man goers now feel that it has sold out, and I've been to Bonnaroo 5 years in a row. I loved it, but i guarantee that Woodstock and Monterey didn't have stages sponsored by Pepsi. But let's move on from this...

 

Why can't evolution be considered part of God's creation? I would agree that to disagree with evolution is rather ignorant, but i think that there's much to elaborate from it. Personally i feel that extraterrestrials play a part in our evolution. But i also feel that this separation of creation from evolution is rather silly. Obviously, if God was real, a realistic way to look at it would be that "his/her" creation would take the form of evolution. I've always been dumbfounded by this either/or attitude towards the two.

 

It's pretty difficult to get jaded to the direction of your culture when it lasts only a few years, such as the original hippie movement and doesn't maintain long enough for the development of new generations.

 

it depends on how you describe god.

i am an atheist, but i must admit that my favorite definition for god was one that i read in the bhavagad gita intro by Srila Prabhupada:

"the complete whole and the complete absolute truth"

which he describes to be the complete sum of the universe and all its energies including consciousness. in this description, i would say, yes god does exist because god=the universe, and i cant think of anything scientific that would contradict this statement.

 

My mistake. Chimps and not apes. I hardly see a difference. But what i have read is apes and hominids.

 

The question remains how to weigh these subjective states. I have a friend who is famous physicist, N.H. who wrote a book called Quantum Reality who was very much into designing some kind of device for doing just that but with no success.

Here is some wikipedia to give an idea of his mindset,
While employed in industry, Herbert was part of the Fundamental Fysiks Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, founded in May 1975 by Elizabeth Rauscher and George Weissmann.[3] The group's initial interest was in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, the EPR paradox, and Bell's inequality, but members pursued diverse interests that lay outside of mainstream physics, exploring psychedelic drugs, psi phenomena, the nature of consciousness, and speculative connections of these areas with quantum physics. During the 1970s and 1980s, Herbert and Saul-Paul Sirag organized a yearly Esalen Seminar on the Nature of Reality, bringing together participants to discuss the interpretation of quantum mechanics.[4] With Richard Shoup of Xerox PARC, Herbert constructed a "Metaphase Typewriter", a "quantum operated" device whose purpose was "to communicate with disembodied spirits".[1] Despite many tests, including an attempt to contact the spirit of Harry Houdini on the hundredth anniversary of his birth, the group reported no success with the device.[5]
Herbert supports a holistic interpretation of quantum physics.[6] He has argued for "quantum animism" in which mind permeates the world at every level.[7]Werner Krieglstein wrote regarding his quantum animism:

“

Herbert's quantum animism differs from traditional animism in that it avoids assuming a dualistic model of mind and matter. Traditional dualism assumes that some kind of spirit inhabits a body and makes it move, a ghost in the machine. Herbert's quantum animism presents the idea that every natural system has an inner life, a conscious center, from which it directs and observes its action.[8]

My wife and I went to visit him in San Francisco just after his wife died in 2002. We had a 4 hour conversation while we walked along a nature trail and he pulled out a fat doobie for the journey. He performed a memorium for his wife in the form of throwing a pair of her panties in the south bay..He expressed deepest frustration that he couldn't develop a scientific accounting for his inner life and it occurred to me how profoundly we are taught to mistrust the proportions of our own experience. As if we can't legitimately discern it is hot unless we can see a corresponding numerical temperature reading. Relating to this example as a chef I developed an acute sense for being able to discern weight as well as temperature of liquids, within a certain range, through the sense of touch. That is if you put a piece of bread dough in my hand I can tell you how much it weighs in terms of ounces or whether a sauce has reached 165 degrees. Point being that our sensory feedback loop can be finely calibrated through vital experience. That is you can glean very accurate information directly proportionate to your interest.

 

I remember reading about that typewriter experiment long ago.

 

I was actually quoting to an other post and was trying to point out most of what you stated in regards to numbers do not mean much. Reread the quoted txt I responded to and you will see we are stating relatively the same idea.

I also said that there is links but that the link in Evolution is not 100% proven. Again, animals, plants, Humans are all made of the same particles, a little more here a little less here but in general the same elements. Chimps, Apes Humans are close but not undeniably proven as are Birds to Dinosaurs, close but not undeniably close
I was not disapproving of the evolution chain just making a point to the fact of the quoted post.

 

I think I read about Laughter in a book once. :book:
Unfortunately it is not in the staple diet of man anymore

 

Whose fault is that? Surely, not mine....

 

Because there is zero real evidence for any God. It's worse than that, every aspect of religion, Gods, and superstition can be explained logically. Superstition may go far back as dinosaurs, it's literally a "bird brained" survival instinct. To take an aspect of nature or natural laws and give credit to a fantasy creature is to spit in the face of science. Religion, superstition and faith all devalue life, nature and reality. Science is on the verge of explaining - with logic reason and evidence - the entire evolution of complexity from the nothingness of dark space to intelligent life. The only silly thing to add to that would be to say, "and before dark space, there was an eternal supreme all knowing consciousness that made the space...".

 

Problem is, that's not the definition of God. The universe is not a giant consciousness. The universe is mostly empty space with occasional specks of hot burning gasses with even smaller specks of rock and ice. With the only known intelligence being little specks on a speck of a speck of a speck. If there is other intelligent life, it is probably separated by millions or billions of light years. Making communication impossible and their knowledge limited. Finite specks of finite consciousness that are beyond communication can't really be grouped together as one whole consciousness. Real consciousness is constant and near instant communication between trillions of neurons and cells inside a physical brain.

 

There is such a thing as theoretical physics. There isn't evidence for everything in theoretical physics but it is acknowledged as and considered to be a proper scientific field. When we ask should there be room for God in science it is not in the first place about putting God in the centre of it, it's about if there's any room for God in science at all. Of course there is. Maybe not for every scientist or in every field (just because it is not particular useful) but that's only good.
When scientists or certain people that are kind of frantic where it comes to science and seemingly opposite concepts insists and are pretty much ridiculing every consideration or mentioning of God having a place in science too that's when they're obviously going wrong. Hey, you don't have to concern yourself with it Just accept that other people and 'even' real scientists do have room for it. It doesn't have to lead to faulty research at all.... it can be a name for the wondrous nature of physics (that may get explained later). People who feel so extreme anti about this tend to misunderstand and generalize theistic/deistic people to the point where it seems incompatible with scientific research. This is primarily their own issue of course and ideally should not be made other people's problem or concern.

 

The Self Aware Universe - Amit Goswami

http://www.amazon.com/The-Self-Aware-Universe-Amit-Goswami/dp/0874777984

 

It all depends on what you call God, though. The sun used to be referred to as a God. Is the sun not a higher power that literally sustains all life on this planet? How can you prove that it's not a God? It was literally worshipped as one, and it is responsible for our entire existence in every instant.

 

Wormholes could be used...and billions of light years only seems like a lot from our perspective. Meanwhile, there's only one galactic core that is holding all of one galaxy together.

Fish in the Atlantic and fish in the Pacific may not be able to be grouped together as one consciousness, not to mention a human in the USA and a human in Russia. But if you zoom outside of planet Earth, suddenly you see each "finite speck of consciousness" as a cell on a single Organism known as Earth. You need to zoom out your perspective and it becomes obvious that it's all one consciousness.

To me, it's just intuitively obvious that everything in the cosmos is non-locally interconnected. What "proof" do i have? Well the Earth needs the Sun, and the Sun needs the Galaxy. So we wouldn't exist if it wasn't for things that are "independent" from us.