Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

There is no direct experience of another persons experience only by virtue of a level of identification which says I am separate from him. There is no limit in the province of mind which is naturally abstract. The body has limits. I am, the name we call ourselves when revealing our condition is the name we all inherit in creation. It is not the imagination in control but the gene. So I got what you believe, the thing I am saying is that there is no lack of evidence to warrant the necessity of having to prove it.

Abstract means not specifically here or there.

 

Perhaps we can develop such skills but we are not born with the capacity to conceptualize consciousness and the dynamics of direct experience in such a way, it is something that needs to be developed, even if it can be fully developed as such. Regardless, I don't think this really addressess neonspectraltoast's argument.

 

There is for solipsists.

 

let me at em...you are making an argument on their behalf. I haven't seen anyone make the argument for themselves yet.

 

If we can develop such skills then it comes from capacity. We are born with capacity, not taught the skills. We are taught in largest part to use our minds to conform to arbitrary standards of behavior and not taught to use our powers of distinction to illumine the world for ourselves. Coming to know for sure is possible but coming to know involves you knowing it. Knowing doesn't rely on proof it functions evidently. I know how to tie my shoes. I know the difference between apple and orange. The things we know are what is the same and what is different or what a thing is for, (how it works.) Christ teaching is exactly for developing the skills in question. Do not judge by appearances but rather use right judgement, i.e., scientific method. We have learned to use our minds to judge each other according to arbitrary standards and thus haven't been taught to use standard measures.

We are given a memory in the first few years of life through our devoted bond with our parent figure and so we acquire a substantial and enduring view of the world. It's a program. We are meant to have a program and do, example gene, but there is obviously a bug in the guilt ridden psyche and something that inhibits our understanding of each other. So some way of wiping clean the memory, the programming, is needed. Forgiveness then is the mental exercise that allows space in the memory for a different lesson.

 

It's not really on their behalf. It's more on the behalf of everyone. There are things that exist we cannot prove. But that is pretty obvious. We all see things every day no one else sees, and our word is the only thing we have to go by. This doesn't prove God exists. It only says that we can't have full and comprehensive knowledge of everything. Not without becoming God ourselves.

One could say we do have full and comprehensive knowledge of everything via the fact that we are actually all one and we all have direct knowledge of something, and comprehensively we all know everything. This would be on my behalf. I think it would leave things pretty much as they are. Psychologically, anyway, because what is the difference? There is none.

One could say it's possible we could become like God, but isn't that tantamount to admitting God exists? (Or is at least a good possibility?)

One could admit we can't have full and comprehensive knowledge of everything. But does that mean nothing can? It is a big thing to admit, when you think about it. It's admitting there is a hole at the heart of science. At least in as far as it has power to solve the mystery of everything.

 

In first paragraph you say you argue for everyone, not really on their behalf.

Second paragraph you say, This would be on my behalf, a slightly different version which you say isn't different.

I will attempt to do this in an orderly fashion.

The universe is made of information.

Every bit itself informed.

We are relatively informed in time but no less every bit informed.

We are relatively informed being formed of families.

Coming into the world is becoming familiar.

We are in a constant state of becoming.

There is always more to become familiar with.

There is no need to limit the province of mind.

 

If we could become "like God" then it would indicate we are in a sense putting "God" above ourselves so that would mean that we have a belief in him/her in someway. The word "God" seems to be, over the millenia, a word to keep people at a lower level, to kneel before "God", to do as he says, to live their life according to "God" and no other. To a point of non worthiness other than to "God"

Sounds more of a dictatorship. To sell your life to a nonexistent being, that is/isn't real, that may or may not destroy us all, that may or may not judge us. If "God" forgives us all and Jesus died for our future sins, then why the emphasis on a Hell. If we do not obey "God" then an eternal life in Hell is guaranteed. How is that, if "God" forgives?

I see "God" as us all. The meaning behind the word. Non judgmental, peaceful and happiness, creation, love, joy etc The way we are all intended to live

"God" should be reclassified as a Lifestyle and not a "supreme being that resides over us all". We are not Marionettes.

We cannot have knowledge of everything because of our ego. To know everything means we have to delve deep into the unknown which (most) scientist do not and it is not that they won't but a life of certain beliefs have us all in some sort of fear of it (mainly loss of their Grant Funding). Maybe there should be more true Buddhists and Hindus working on Quantum Physics or String Theory and incorporate their experiences (both spiritual+ scientific) to get a true answer.

The Bible, "Jesus" and "God" are all metaphors, it is our fear and blindness that prevents us from actually seeing it for more then factual Laws written by "God"
If you teach a child over and over that 1+1=3 then after a while said child will argue the point that the sum does not equal 2, but rather the sum has and will forever be equal to 3. The same is for "God" after being instructed and reminded of the fact for 1000's of yrs that "God" is alive and well in heaven, people will never sway from that depiction even with the hardest proof.
A hilarious spoof of this is when Homer (Simpsons) has a crayon removed from his brain and becomes a genius and proves, with a mathematical formula that "God" does not exist, then gives the formula to Flanders only for him to agree but then destroy the evidence because of his beliefs. Same is true for most today.

 

I liked most your post however...

Ego or not we have a finite size brain and body so we cannot "have knowledge of everything." The Scope of the universe is too vast, the closest star would take roughly 81,000 years to get to based on an estimate I read with some cutting edge technology, more realistically right now over 100,000 years. Then on the flip side to the very small world of quantum mechanics, the uncertainity principle which is fundamental to quantum physics suggests there are certain limits we can know on objects once we get to subatomic particles.

Is it possible we might be further along in better exploring such phenomena if we were collectively a bit less egocentric? Sure, it's possible but really how much further along would we be? and couldn't it be suggested that it is ego, in the first place, which is the impeteus for such scientific discoveries and technologies in many instances?

Also, I didn't follow the part about the true answer by Buddhists/Hindus. They have been around for as long as quantum mechanics has and at least a millenia before, what is it that you think they have to offer to the topic?

I suppose you might be able to condition a child to neglect certain obvious truths about reality but I'm not so sure about that example, assuming numbers were explained properly. Some scientific studies have shown that even animals can recognize simple differences in basic quantities accurately.

 

All anyone can say is the way it seems to them. You included dope.

 

not very biased, are you?
It is painfully obvious you were raised within some old traditional, fucked-up, oppressive and perverted flavor of Christianity.

forgiveness is much, much more about accepting oneself and ones own faults and failing's than any nonsense with some stern old guy just waiting to mete out judgement and punishment.
only by recognizing, acknowledging and accepting and forgiving ONESELF is the true concept of forgiveness in the Bible achieved and understood.
the idea of eternal damnation you present is also a oppressive perversion of the actual meaning. Sin is nothing more or less than "missing the mark", "being a little off target", "discombobulated", "not tuned in to the station properly"
and eternal damnation is separation from God, a voluntary one at that.

While many of the Old Testament stories are very much metaphor, a vast majority of it is actual history.
History that has been verified and confirmed. I posted some list of things in the Bible that have been confirmed historically a while back. It was a small list, only a few hundred people, places and events, but there is a lot more.
so the Bible itself is far from just metaphor.
Jesus, while his existence is often contested, is still considered to have been a real person and there is evidence to suggest it to be true.

The views you expressed are a shining example of why people, if truly interested. need to go to the source material instead of just forming opinions and conclusions on what/how other people have presented an idea.
That goes for any and all philosophies and ideologies, religious and political.
as has been already mentioned but always bears repeating "know yourself first and foremost"

and please explain to me why you think Buddhists or Hindus have some special insight or whatever that individuals of other belief systems or atheists don't have?
that is simply your personal bias and prejudice.
I do not have to ascribe to any particular belief system or methodical ritual to experience various altered states of consciousness or understand different view points regarding the nature of the universe and consciousness.
again, please check your filters sir.


Now whether or not God is a metaphor, well isn't that part of the point of this thread?

 

My vocabulary is quite a bit larger than that there BlackBillBlake. There is no reason to limit the province of the mind, period.

 

depends on what your focusing on.

there is really only one "law" at work in the entire universe and it controls and dictates the course of every single facet of all of the known universe and there is absolutely no escaping it, as far as we know at this stage of our overall evolution, literally everything can pretty much be reduced down to this one simple fact;

temperatures always even out.

It is the law of reciprocity, karma, the golden rule,
it controls all chemical reactions, guides evolutionary progress, controls the movement of everything, is responsible for birth and death,
it permeates all areas of everything,
this constant pressure to achieve equilibrium and balance.
and it is echoed in every religion/spiritual body of thought as the core tenant, "do to others as you want them to do to you"
reciprocity
balance
equilibrium
No matter where you look, you will see it, therefore if God exists, equilibrium is going to be it's/his/her primary attribute.

IMHO of course

 

I can't get by this first line of reasoning. To be like something is a side by side comparison. Like is not higher or lower. To be like god doesn't require belief only like characters or attributes. If you conceive of god as creative source then we find we have a like attribute. If you conceive of god as speaking things into existence then we find we have a like attribute.
The word god functions like this, god is that which we invoke. To invoke is to cite as authority. Your god, is whatever you are devoted to in terms of rightness.

 

So we inherit devotion, it's purpose obviously to insure survival. What is that devotion devoted to, our life. God's will and your will are the same. We are devoted to life but absorbed by sensation to the point that we kill because of the way we feel.

 

As far as sensation goes and this speaks to the sameness of the human experience there is a range that goes from sleep to peak, beyond which you pass out or cease to able to differentiate. I am good at discerning air temperature by touch withing a certain range for example. If it gets below or above that range however I cease to be able to differentiate any kind of scale. So as far as sensation goes you are as familiar with it as you a going to get. That is there is no novel horizon as far as sensation goes. Because we seek temperate balance being warm blooded our lives are a series of sensations some of which we may call pleasant and some not so. Then again it is not required to editorialize or be favorably or unfavorably engrossed in your sensational estate.

As far as how sensational awareness occupies the mind in terms of the space it takes up in the moment, the least irritation is the same as the greatest catastrophe, and the least concern the same as the greatest devotion.

 

There is another way to conceive this notion of the universal constant and that is it is a law without opposite. Hot always moves toward cold. Light to dark.

 

Questioning the extent of your vocabulary was not intended.

As an instrument of consciousness, mind may have it's limitations.

 

No,not biased and my Sundays were spent happily building forts with my friends, of course that was after some bacon and eggs and a Ma and Pa kettle movie on our local PBS station, then Pasta for dinner then an episode of Beachcombers on CBC lol

I agree on with your assessment on sin and forgiveness. Although rereading it it does come somewhat of as my personal opinion from experience, which it is not but I still concur that sin, hell are something that has been forced upon people throughout the millenia and the only salvation is allegiance to "God",to avoid eternal damnation and ascend into Heaven. It is all in us, not a particular place nor do i believe that someone holds that eternal power over me.

I do not believe in a "God" but I believe we are all Gods in ourselves with the power to change ourselves and our perception of life.

I included Buddhist and Hindu because of their long history and understanding the unknown of our internal selves. I agree with "I do not have to ascribe to any particular belief system or methodical ritual to experience various altered states of consciousness or understand different view points regarding the nature of the universe and consciousness." I am not Buddihst, Hindu, Christian, Catholic etc. I am me, Mindfulness, non judgmental (although sometimes I wish to strangle someone lol), forgiveness and Happiness is what I employ

I would like to understand Atheism more. That sadly, is a very stereotyped belief system and considering America was built on Religious Freedom (pilgrims) we really don't have that freedom or any other. I guess if it means non belief in a particular "God" then I would be included. But there is more to it then that.

I guess we are so ingrained with Christianity, we fail to venture outside for fear of Judgement by "God" himself, when really it is just our own fear for the unknown

 

Who knows what was intended, i responded to the words straight forwardly.
Mind is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness.

Regardless that mind may have it's limitations, and an individual thinker may certainly limit his attention, whatever they are they cannot be exceeded so there is no reason to speculatively limit the province of mind. The mind is naturally abstract.