Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Alot of the destruction has came as byproducts of advancements in society. So many of those advancements which have made our lives in the immeadiate sense easier, more efficient, more secure are now only being recognized as destructive when we are in a position to do so.

For humans, such advancements have led to the emergence of modern cities, advanced capability to traverse the enviroment, medicine, education and technology.

 

your position is also an assumption

you can't "prove" any of this either way.

neither evolution or any other natural occurrence or process negates the concept of a creator and you guys who think it does are simply mistaken and are following a dead end path if dis-proving God's existence is your goal.

is it so hard to grasp that evolution and other natural process' are the MANNER in which it was created?

Stop thinking of some mumbo-jumbo magician in the sky with a long beard and robes.

To me nature/life is a manifestation of this thing we call "God" or "It"

When its cold, it comes slow.
It is warm, just watch it grow.
All around me.
It is here. it is now.

Just a little bit of it can bring you up or down.
Like the supper it is cooking in your hometown.
It is chicken, it is eggs,
It is in between your legs.
It is walking on the moon,
Leaving your cocoon.

It is the jigsaw. it is purple haze.
It never stays in one place, but its not a passing phase,
It is in the singles bar, in the distance of the face,
It is in between the pages, it is always in a space
It is here. it is now.

Any rock can be made to roll,
If you've enough of it to pay the toll.
It has no home in words or goal,
Not even in your favorite hole.
It is the hope for the dope.
When you ride the horse without a hoof.
It is shaken, not stirred;
Cocktails on the roof.

When you eat right fruit you see everything alive,
It is inside spirit, with enough grit to survive
If you think its pretentious, you've been taken for a ride.
Look across the mirror, before you chose decide
It is here. it is now
It is Rael. it is Rael

Cos its only knock and knowall, but I like it.

 

To suggest there is no design because there is no designer ignores geometry, the fractal procession, the incre-mental step.

 

is it so hard to grasp that evolution and other natural process' are the MANNER in which it was created?

This. And by whom was it created? I think that a fine term to use is Intelligence. The Universe is brimming with Intelligence. Perhaps a Cosmic Mind. How to prove this? First, we have to collectively shift our relationship with Nature and evolve past identifying with our Ego identity of Separation, and realize Oneness.

And I will only elaborate that Magick is man's attempt at being that man in the robes. He's not in the sky, but rather, the forces of Nature permeate all around us, and a Magician does nothing more than harness these forces in conjunction with his Will.

As far as Science is concerned with "how" does this happen, my response would be that there are an infinite amount of ways to break down any Scientific "how". If you break it down to a molecular level, you can break it down ever further, for infinity. The nature of the universe is an infinite Fractal.

Alchemy, Astrology, and Magick use different intervals and connections than Science does to explain this "howness", but that doesn't somehow make it less possible or legitimate.

For example, Magick posits that the "how" to manifestation lies in the subconscious, the usage of symbols, archetypes, etc. to establish a certain atmosphere and relationship with the subconscious. It also relies on the notion of As Above, So Below, which essentially unites Relativity and Quantum Science. Going from this notion, putting certain symbols and intentions into the subconscious will inevitably lead to the external manifestations.

This may seem vague in Scientific paradigms, but as I said, there are an infinite amount of intervals to break down as far as "howness" is concerned. Science still asserts, though it can't ultimately prove, that the brain creates Consciousness, and this is where the error is made. As long as Science asserts this simple notion, it will continue to assert Separation instead of Oneness as being the essential truth to the world. As long as the ultimate belief in Separation persists, then As Above, So Below means nothing, and Relativity and Quantum Mechanics remain separate from each other.

Once it is realized that the brain is more like a radio to channel Consciousness, then the Oneness perspective will dawn.

Kundalini can aid in linking all of this together in a physiological explanation, bridging Science, Religion, and Spirituality.

The paradigm needs to collectively shift from "Matter before Mind" to "Mind before Matter". This is the essential difference between Science and Hermeticism. But they can come together. Perhaps a third explanation is the answer. Something like Consciousness before Mind, Mind before Matter, and yet all are One.

Man is God. God is Man. All is God, but Man is in the unique position to REFLECT on the fact that he is God, and One with Nature, or he may choose to remain asleep to all of this and will continue down the sleepwalking path that our world currently is down.

 

I've come to the conclusion that leprechauns are real.

 

Yes quite difficult for my logical mind to grasp...

 

Can't tell if your response is being sarcastic or not? There's nothing essentially that complicated about it.

 

Not sarcastic at all, it's just not a very logical summation. This doesn't inherently mean it's 'wrong', perhaps the universe, as Terence Mckenna suggests " is not only stranger than we suppose, but stranger than we can suppose."

But if this is so, then I see no reason why we cannot just break down the apparent 'design' of geometry thedope mentions as well, to where

Fractals are rendered a meaningless descriptor, therefore not the nature of the universe.



But back to my logical qualms...

Man did not create evolution and most other natural processes, so If Man is God, then what is the "perhaps Cosmic Mind" intelligence?

 

Of course you are completely correct in your second line, I got a bit overzealous in making such a claim. Of course a designer cannot be explicitly disproven, nor can it be proven. I can only infer, implicitly that is, from the available evidence that nature exists in the state is does due to natural processes. Man invented the wheel, and various machines incorporating wheels but the principle upon which wheels function was not invented by man; the same can be said to be true of mathematics, the principles have always existed.

 

Homo sapiens sapiens wasn't invented by man although men make up many things about themselves.

I don't know what to make of the suggestion that a mechanical nature aspires to noble ideals.

 

Amusing

Which came first? God or science?

Reminds me of the old chicken or the egg question. LOL

 

If God exists, then God would have definitely come first.

 

Yeah but he who is first shall be last.

 

I think the question at hand is, how can it be moral to admit eternal moral inferiority to a God? One ultimately has no hope of becoming a truly moral person, then, unless you just stupidly say morality is "really doing your best" and kind of vaguely leave it at that. But God can't simply be doing his best. All of God's work must be his finest. It almost seems like theists must think atheists defunct, because if your whole goal is morality, can't they imagine a truly good person that doesn't have to become idealized or romanticized somehow? I think there are people like that all over the place. Though they are romanticized, through me. I can't appeal to their true self-esteem; I can only see them through my own sense of self.

 

There was no way I was going to read through 30 pages, so I apologize if my response is off-track or has already been said.

Doesn't the answer to this question completely depend on how one defines -- or rather "perceives" -- "God" (and science, for that matter, too) in the first place?

I personally see it this way: God tends to be a term used when something is not understood/proved/confirmed (and I believe was likely the WAY in which people used to explain the things that they observed about the world before the technology/knowledge was present to explain something any other way). Science is a term used for things that have been tested and broken down into terms, categories, and tangible things. Sometimes, the things that were once said to be the result of "God" have been answered by what we call science, through a series of questioning, testing, observing, etc. However, neither the idea of "God" nor science do any thing to disprove the other one's existence. And, in fact, both things exist, because humans have defined them. Or -- I should say, humans have TRIED to define them. Even amongst organized religious groups, there still remains debate between the members of those communities upon how certain aspects of the religion are defined (the Bible, a perfect example). There is so much debate because of conxtext and how individuals perceive what they learn/read/hear/experience.

The problem I see is that there are stark differences in how people define these things. This is in part why some people consider themselves "religious" and others simply "spritiual". Some people take literal meaning out of readings from the Bible (or any other religious book for that matter) while others define "God" loosely, and not necessarily as a straight-foward and highly structured/defined concept. Some people believe that science IS the disproof of God/spirits/religion/etc., yet, both are such ambiguous terms that leave people wondering ... What does that even really mean? One might say that Science IS "God". And/or that God IS Science. At least... for me, personally, I do not see the two things as separate unless approached by someone with a very definite view of God and Science and then asked the same question.

The bottom line is that there is not single human being who knows the "truth", the answers to all things, and thus the argument itself is absolutely irrelevant. One, two or even thousands of scientific "facts" still do not provide even a small margin of the knowledge required to be able to jump to the conclusion that there is no "God" or whatever the vague question is here. Nor can "faith" truthfully crush the significance of any scientific findings.

All we really have here is a lot of vagueness, and a lot of getting ourselves tangled up between communication differences/barriers and so on and so forth.
HOWEVER -- if you are asking if it is possible for someone consider themselves religious/spritiual and still also consider themselves a supporter of science? OF COURSE. And honestly...even the most strictly religious individuals of the world still support SOME science, otherwise they would not categorize their environment, or accept ANYTHING as fact/truth/knowledge, even down to the most basic thing such as "2+2=4"

In truth, there (likely) isn't a single person on the planet who completely and entirely shuns science.

For the record, I do not really separate the two in my own mind. Science itself is a "higher power" because I and no one else will ever be able to reach the finish line...there will always be questions, nothing will ever be fully understood, and whether or not everything in this world works like a "machine" with mathematical equations attached still does not trump the fact that it is all beautiful, complex, and beyond human control. Humans are not the highest, most powerful force/energy/beings in this universe, and so it would be silly, even as a scientist to claim that there is no "higher power". Likewise, even if "God" (whatever that may mean to you) was proven tomorrow, it still would not change the fact that there are equations for how some/many things work.

So, I guess... I probably just really even hate the fact that people make such a big deal out of the two things as if they absolute opposing forces or something.

 

If your bottom line is no one knows the truth then your head line is everyone is a liar. There is a difference between the truth and what is true. The truth is beyond repute. this is better notated as what is so or reality. What is true is relative to comparisons and the only honest comparison is same or different and not the same. Absolutely you can absolutely tell what is true. and there is no knowledge that is not complete but a learner gets more. If nothing is fully understood then nothing is understood ever.

 

First then also last. my father and I are one

 

Sure.

 

God is the Creator of all things including revolution. So of course, the answer would be yes. But sometimes i question that answer because evolution in some ways have been created by the mortal people and yes God created moral people but he also gave us the moral ability to do as we please.

Modern iScience is surround by God ,because one the first founders of Science were catholic ministers and two modern science is based upon what we could see and observe using our natural human abilities that were giving to us.

 

I have faith that I will wake up tomorrow. But I may not. I know with certainty that if I don't--I will be dead. I know that if i believed in a god, it would also entail faith. If I were to be dead--that state could be described completely by science with certainty. For some odd reason--I choose certainty. But, that's me.

I know this is very simplistic. It's really all I can think of----if humans were meant to know the why, the who and maybe the when---there would be no need for faith.

I certainly hope the spark of life continues after the rotting husk that I have been using and has been so handy, returns to dust. It might be so much easier to have faith in a deity

if the cruelty of humans wasn't so obvious and lasting.