Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

The question was to Noxious.

 

The conversation is public. how does that change the calculus here? Is it unreasonable to ask that you bring your reason to the fore? If it is not reason you offer but just the occasional rhetorical presence, I can see your reluctance.

 

and it was answered in the post you are questioning.

thought it was pretty obvious.

 

You apparently don't know what I mean by worship and Noxious is suggesting that I don't know what is meant by parable, it's turning into a semantic mess that I don't really care to discuss. That's basically it.

 

I apologize if I gave offense, but you have to admit that Mr. Writers initial question concerning the verse and your subsequent line of questioning does suggest that you guys either do not understand it as a parable or it's intended meaning, or you do not understand what a parable is, otherwise why ask the question you did.

 

It's okay. It's not like i am eagerly awaiting your lack of effort. In the same turn it's hard to take your points or interrogatives seriously given your self pandering stance. Semantics again is the study of meaning. What is communication for if not to convey meaning? carry on...

 

When things turn into a semantic mess it's because you are not clear on meaning. This falls under the heading of being honest about your own shit.

 

That's still just your opinion man. A knife can be used for shitty reasons or good reasons. Someone with a million dollars can use it for shallow reasons or genuine reasons. Magick itself is just a certain path that nobody has to take if they don't want to. But to say anyone who practices it is shallow is just a shallow a perspective. Your viewpoints are reflective of you, not Magick.

Peace out, I'm bored of this forum. You guys are digging these vibes of "all is mind" and meanwhile are completely missing that those teachings are thousands of years old, dating all the way back to ancient Egypt. That being Hermeticism. You will only perceive what you choose to perceive and believe. Cya

 

I am inclined to agree. Maybe he was meaning in general? Or expressing his opinion about you? Not sure but hope you don't leave because of that.

I don't think we're missing that those teachings are that old That looks like projection because most of us who are conversing with you are just very skeptical of magic and why most people get into it and you dislike that.

 

I said not one thing about you being shallow, hungry, yes. Now we can add bored. I think you kind of mash conversations together in your mind sometimes to come to the conclusions or responses you do. I said the words shallow application to relaxx. Condition applies to us all. I didn't say anything about how you use magic only the motivation for using it. Here is another fact of condition. You only defend yourself if you feel threatened. Why would anyone feel threatened in a forum where we exchange ideas? It's because when the fundamentals, (brain waves,) are challenged, you perceive your own weakness. I suggest being concerned about your own image is a sign you are really not secure in it.

Does it occur to you to ask why it is you are the only one that gets it?

What do I mean about fact of condition? Now this refers to "ancient teaching."

They entered the ark two by two, male and female each according to their kind.

Male and female are the polar positions of the condition engendered. That is to have a chase, the dramatic condition, you have the pursuer and the pursued. Take either one of those motives out and the condition of chase falls apart.

How do we incur such conditions?

The word condition means to speak with. The terms of the condition lie in your narrative of events.

 

I have to make the assumption that your subjective experience is anything like my own. This is really old news, it's called solipsism.

But my point stands that something can be real and important and not be scientific.

 

This is all just philosophy. At the end of the day, there is still duality, matter, and consciousness, and they are all interacting with each other. All this Vedanta Oneness philosophy is nothing other than that. Yes, it is true that it all might be one thing, but if that is so, then why even declare that all is Mind? That term would be irrelevant. Mind is relevant, however, if you are talking about the interaction between Consciousness and Matter.

Let's pretend there are no truly in some ultimate sense no "separate" objects. That is fine. But at the end of the day, on the relative scale of things, separation still exists. If everything were TRULY one thing, then we wouldn't even be capable of interacting with each other.

Me and you on a relative scale are separate from each other. We might not ultimately be, but we are on a relative scale. What the quote is saying doesn't make sense, because it is separation that allows things to interact with each other. If everything was ONLY one thing, then that's how interaction wouldn't be possible. Not if they are separate. Separation is what allows the interaction.

Just because matter exists does not mean that it can't be the point of Consciousness. If all is Mind, then Mind and Consciousness are what's needed to think matter into existence.

If only consciousness exists, then matter would be what Consciousness is conscious of.

In the end it's all One thing but there are still distinctions on a relative scale which is what makes it fun and exciting.

You gotta be careful to not get too caught up in pure Philosophy.

 

Philosophy is not science, pure and simple.

 

Yes, i know that. Magick is not philosophy.

 

First of all what is god?
Why is god and what purpose does god serve really...besides being a comforting thought for some that things will be better in another life and that there is another life.

 

^
You're talking mainly about an afterlife. This may be connected to God if one believes in that but it's not God. Also... apparently for many God isn't a comfortable thought at all

But what we should be aware of is that what God is often differs per person and that we don't HAVE TO incorporate God in science if we don't wanna or feel we don't have any use for it but that there is room for it in science for the people that happen to have a use for it or simply a use for the word. We don't have to be so anal about it because some of us feel they don't have any use for God. It's all ok.

 

The aim of Vedanta is not philosophy but realization. The philosophy is only really a signpost. No amount of philosophy can convey the experience that is the heart of Vedanta.

 

Well individual instances of subjective experience are called qualia, not solipsism. Solipsism is the idea that ones own mind is all that exists. You don't have to regard things that way. Might be really new news to you considering what you have said.
Scientific is regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science. A guess is not scientific in method but it's method can be studied scientifically.

Question to you still, what is not scientific about the subjective experience?