Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

When I said likelihood, I meant the scientific results based upon the evidence. Initial observations may lead to a hypothesis, which is on the way to becoming a scientific study but if there is no method to testing the hypothesis and/or no evidence to support the hypothesis, yet we still maintain that hypothesis, that is where the science part of it peters out. This is why alot of paranormal explanations get relegated to pseudoscience, my claims of Chtulu's existence would and pretty much all 'supernatural' phenomena.


Most descriptions of God suggest he is a supernatural deity, therefore beyond the scope of science.

 

Some describe god as a natural feature. If god is to be approached by science then obviously supernatural would be a problem.

 

Reincarnation and Rebirth...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_(Buddhism)

Occult Buddhism http://www.jnani.org/intro/occult_buddhism.html

If you feel so strongly about this then why are you still holding out on getting the Astrology reading? Where's the hesitation coming from? Let's put the rubber to the road already...you claim that's what you want from me.

 

I haven't found that is what astrology attempts to do. Earlier in this thread I talked about the influences being dealt with by astrology are like the weather. Just like your analogy of the influences of the sun and the moon. We can and do make weather predictions and we can adjust ourselves if need be. Protect plants from frost and the like. Obviously predicting the weather is an inexact science but a fortune is spent on it and they aren't suspending the activity because it proves to be inexact. As far as the actual procession of the planets within the astrological framework, that is by measurements of degree, the predictions are exact. If these influences exist they are concurrent with the moment. The predictive element is not as relevant as the the way it accounts for psychic tensions in the moment. We may say it will rain tomorrow but we deal with those effects in the moment.

I have some suspicion of the idea of causal. What I see is communication that is interdependent. Influential is the way communication appears to me. As far as things being eventful that is all in how you measure it. What we call the beginning and end are never actually those things in a space time continuum. In time though as far as our temporal arrangement we can trace our influential presence to conception.

 

Astrology is much more of a way to understand yourself on a psychological level than it is a fortune teller of what's going to happen in the future, in my opinion. It's a symbolic language to understand your being.

 

On what buddha says about the aggregate we are. Those are good platforms for transcending the limited idea of self. On a sensational level we deal with creature. Our creature is an aggregate of sensation and knowing, the communal elements of coming to know. What we use consciousness for is finding direction and we always choose with a guide.

 

I think this is a fairly good way of talking about it

 

So science just doesn't have time for such simplistic dawdlings as the contemplation of God... But I guess what I'm really asking is, and have been asking from the beginning, is the contemplation of God a poor thing? Is it, at its best, a good and constructive thing? Aren't we being constructive right now, doesn't it have something to do with God, and what is that something that it has to do with God?

So in other words, even if God is not scientific, is the contemplation of God a noble thing to do? Ever...in any way, shape, or form? Is the scientific mind the only noble mind, or is the philosophical mind a noble mind too? Do the two always accompany one another: Is the scientist always the best philosopher and vice versa?

It seems impossible to discover what God really is just because there are so many opinions on what God really is. Though, I guess to a degree it shouldn't matter what God really is. If what keeps everything going is a mysterious life force, maybe this life force has no sentience. But is it God? On the other hand, if God is like a person and it can respond to you, would it really be polite to obsess over what God is? Imagine you were sitting at a table with a person and another person named Troy was nearby and the person sitting next to you began asking "What is Troy?" right in front of Troy like Troy wasn't even there. I think Troy would be confused. But like I said, maybe it's true that God has no place in science but is just as worthy a thing to consider as scientific things?

 

I was contemplating a form of "Meta-astrology" earlier in the thread, which was along the lines of what you are suggesting here but didn't bring it up as I felt it kind of a tangent at the time.

It is a bit ironic that this form of astrology, I think , would be a form of cold hard deterministic materialism, which is interesting as that seems like a system ChinaCat does not ascribe to.

Also another problem to consider here, is even if we hypothetically had all the technology available to calculate this meta-astrology, with our current understanding of what the universe consists of, we still would have tons of question marks revolving around dark matter, which we wouldn't be able to account for directly, even in this revamped type of astrology.

 

To me, it's Alchemy to combine cold, hard deterministic materialism with Astrology

 

Stephen Hawking once quipped "Philosophy is dead", I do not agree with the statement really and I think particularly in his own field of cosmology and some of the more obscure quantum mechanics, some of the theories proposed seem to be bordering a very fine line between philosophy and science.

A philosophical mind is a noble mind imo, although it can dwell far outside the realms of science, so I don't think philosopher's make the best scientists necessarily or vice versa. If I recall correctly, relaxxx gave a good analogy, along the lines of if philosophy made up a dart board, the science part would cover a tiny area.

Where I see the key difference between the two is the vast majority of philosophy attempts to be explanatory in thoughts as where the vast majority of science attempts to be predictive in observations.

As far as contemplation of God being noble, this may be difficult to understand but like it doesn't register with me. Even if you don't feel the comparison is apt, I can only relate it to be like saying to someone "Is the contemplation of ghosts noble?" or "is the contemplation of leprechaun's noble?" I'm sure you didn't mean noble in that sense, but the question almost has like a missionary type heir about it.

The only paranormal/supernatural intelligence I contemplate in a proactive sense is Aliens and I don't really consider that noble.

The topic of contemplating God's existence can be useful in applying various philosophical techniques and learning about different perspectives, however I think it can be detrimental to the versatility of Philosophy, seeing as it is discussed in about ~ 80-90% of the threads in the Philosophy forums, with usually little to no waivering in view points.

I agree, even among the same individual, that is part of the problem and what I, as well as a few others mean when we mention the phrase and fallacy "moving the goal posts."

 

There is such thing as Cosmic Astrology, it's just rather new. Let's remember here that Astrology doesn't get the same type of funding as Science does, so if people are going to make the argument that it's limited, just remember that it's not limited to our solar system but how are Astrologers supposed to get deep into Cosmic study when they don't have access to the same telescopes that Scientists do? But with that being said, there is such thing as Cosmic Astrology.

 

Astrology also goes back further than Roman and Greek gods...

 

Whether you decide you do or don't believe in Magick/Alchemy/Astrology highly has to do with whether you believe Synchronicity to be real or not.

 

The question is, is Science itself falsifiable? If there is an explanation to something that is correct, such as Astrology, and goes outside of the Scientific Method, and is dismissed as being due to chance because of this, is this a moment to see if the Scientific Method itself is falsifiable?

 

One example of why even falsifiability can't be relied upon for something to be considered a Science: String Theory

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/02/falsifiability/

Falsifiability is “just a simple motto that non-philosophically-trained scientists have latched onto.”

"But Ellis and Silk worry that if physicists abandon falsifiability, they could damage the public’s trust in science and scientists at a time when that trust is critical to policymaking."



NO WAY, so it goes back to the fact that it has to do with money and control in policymaking?? I'm so shocked. This must be why you gobble up the mainstream media, Writer...because you're a Scientist and are interlinked with the controlling elite.