Science Makes God Unnecessary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUyJf...eature=related

As soon as one looks for proof of God such as a question toward the necessarily of a creator, one loses the essence which is represented, that which formless an eternal.

Originally Posted by Conaeolos

As soon as one looks for proof of God such as a question toward the necessarily of a creator, one loses the essence which is represented, that which formless an eternal.

Proof is a mathematical concept.

The problem with all this God religion stuff is that it requires and actually demands a bit of faith. Science tries to answer a lot of questions that were formally spiritual, the conclusions that science often provides is no less complicated than it's religious counterpart and faith is still required. The difference is that the scientist normally claims to actually understand a lot of the THEROIES that we are asked to base our whole existance on. In order for science to progress we have to accept hypothisis as fact. I guess it's easier to have faith that all the scientist are smarter than you than it is to believe that God is.

Originally Posted by hippocratie

The problem with all this God religion stuff is that it requires and actually demands a bit of faith.

Actually, it does not.. when god told you to leave haiti in december 2009.. was that faith?

When god miraculously healed that tumor was that faith?

When god delivered that car you finally wanted was that faith?

Faith is a word of hope.. but it is not a word of conviction.. faith is really more.. "well, I hope this happens"

The one thing science won't even tackle or look at (or has but has discredited) is "law of attraction"

"Law of attraction" is the proof you seek that is more than faith (hope) based..

One of our biggest problems and still exists today is those that believe in god.. believe they are LESSER than god.. god is on pedestal.. and I am a lesser being.. when in fact are new age religion teaches us.. we are all equal to god.. or in fact we are all god

Originally Posted by hippocratie

The difference is that the scientist normally claims to actually understand a lot of the THEROIES that we are asked to base our whole existance on.

Interesting thing about science is there just theory's.. but yep, they get excepted as fact a lot.. science reserves the right to turn the theory on its head.. probably shock a hell of a lot of people as it starts to make corrections on theory's that are wrong.. when they have the balls to do it!

The marriage between science and spiritualism is coming.. but it's still gonna take a while from what I read..

Originally Posted by DulcePoetica

Imagine a comprehensive understanding of the nature of "God", with the ability to harness its power and use it for our own betterment and the elevation of mankind.

Such a understanding already exists.. we call it or I call it new age

But one must also acknowledge that all of mankind has "choice" and so you can't force people to improve themselves.. you must honor their free will.. the interesting thing is when people want to improve themselves.. the ENERGY is already there and available.. and they turn into it and use it..

Originally Posted by hippocratie

The problem with all this God religion stuff is that it requires and actually demands a bit of faith. Science tries to answer a lot of questions that were formally spiritual, the conclusions that science often provides is no less complicated than it's religious counterpart and faith is still required. The difference is that the scientist normally claims to actually understand a lot of the THEROIES that we are asked to base our whole existance on. In order for science to progress we have to accept hypothisis as fact. I guess it's easier to have faith that all the scientist are smarter than you than it is to believe that God is.

Scientists should not use deistic methods of validation and deists should not use scientific methods of validation.

Originally Posted by kowalskil

Scientists should not use deistic methods of validation and deists should not use scientific methods of validation.

In other words... What is subjective is not objective, and what is objective is not subjective.

[Jyotir]

.

Some excerpts on this topic from "The Life Divine" by Sri Aurobindo:

"From the difference in the relations of Spirit and Matter to the Unknowable which they both represent, there arises also a difference of effectiveness in the material and the spiritual negations. The denial of the materialist although more insistent and immediately successful, more facile in its appeal to the generality of mankind, is yet less enduring, less effective finally than the absorbing and perilous refusal of the ascetic. For it carries within itself its own cure. Its most powerful element is the Agnosticism which, admitting the Unknowable behind all manifestation, extends the limits of the unknowable until it comprehends all that is merely unknown. Its premise is that the physical senses are our sole means of Knowledge and that Reason, therefore, even in its most extended and vigorous flights, cannot escape beyond their domain; it must deal always and solely with the facts which they provide or suggest; and the suggestions themselves must always be kept tied to their origins; we cannot go beyond, we cannot use them as a bridge leading us into a domain where more powerful and less limited faculties come into play and another kind of inquiry has to be instituted.

A premise so arbitrary pronounces on itself its own sentence of insufficiency. It can only be maintained by ignoring or explaining away all that vast field of evidence and experience which contradicts it, denying or disparaging noble and useful faculties, active consciously or obscurely or at worst latent in all human beings, and refusing to investigate supra-physical phenomena except as manifested in relation to matter and its movements and conceived as a subordinate activity of material forces."

"We seek indeed a larger and completer affirmation. We perceive that in the ascetic ideal the formula, “One without a second”, has not been read sufficiently in the light of that other formula equally imperative, “All this is the Brahman”. The passionate aspiration of man upward to the Divine has not been sufficiently related to the descending movement of the Divine leaning downward to embrace eternally Its manifestation. Its meaning in Matter has not been so well understood as Its truth in the Spirit."

"...we should recognise the enormous, the indispensable utility of the very brief period of rationalistic Materialism through which humanity has been passing. For that vast field of evidence and experience which now begins to reopen its gates to us, can only be safely entered when the intellect has been severely trained to a clear austerity; seized on by unripe minds, it lends itself to the most perilous distortions and misleading imaginations and actually in the past encrusted a real nucleus of truth with such an accretion of perverting superstitions and irrationalising dogmas that all advance in true knowledge was rendered impossible. It became necessary for a time to make a clean sweep at once of the truth and its disguise in order that the road might be clear for a new departure and a surer advance. The rationalistic tendency of Materialism has done mankind this great service."

"The Unknown is not the Unknowable. It need not remain the unknown for us, unless we choose ignorance or persist in our first limitations. For to all things that are not unknowable, all things in the universe, there correspond in that universe faculties which can take cognisance of them, and in man, the microcosm, these faculties are always existent and at a certain stage capable of development. We may choose not to develop them; where they are partially developed, we may discourage and impose on them a kind of atrophy. But, fundamentally, all possible knowledge is knowledge within the power of humanity. And since in man there is the inalienable impulse of Nature towards self-realisation, no struggle of the intellect to limit the action of our capacities within a determined area can for ever prevail."

"...in these barren contradictions the human mind cannot rest satisfied. It must seek always a complete affirmation; it can find it only by a luminous reconciliation. To reach that reconciliation it must traverse the degrees which our inner consciousness imposes on us and, whether by objective method of analysis applied to Life and Mind as to Matter or by subjective synthesis and illumination, arrive at the repose of the ultimate unity without denying the energy of the expressive multiplicity. Only in such a complete and catholic affirmation can all the multiform and apparently contradictory data of existence be harmonised and the manifold conflicting forces which govern our thought and life discover the central Truth which they are here to symbolise and variously fulfil."

Hello everyone,

As a follow-up, I wanted to provide material that might be useful for those who are interested, since I have personally found this material to be helpful.

The link provided below gives access to "The Life Divine", by Sri Aurobindo, basically a comprehensive spiritual and philosophy cosmology. The entire book is recommended, but here especially relevant to this discussion is: Chapter 2, Two Negations: The Materialist Denial" (the other of the 2 negations is Chapter 3, The Refusal of the Ascetic). The chapter provides (imo) a cogent examination of issues pertaining to the thread topic in great depth, and reveals more than a few valuable insights on the subject.

http://www.sriaurobindoashram.org/as...o/writings.php
After linking, scroll down to and open, Vol 21-21, "The Life Divine", then see Chapter 2.

For anyone interested in this author, the linked site provides many of this author's books in PDF format. The PDF format is useful among other things, because it has a built-in search function. The books generally considered most read and referenced by spiritual seekers besides "The Life Divine", are: "Synthesis of Yoga", "Essays on the Gita"; and (unfortunately not available on the site at this time), "Letters on Yoga", Vol. 1-3.


~ J




.

[Chrysaetos]

Religion/spirituality is largely faith based and believes in a non-material reality. Science is concerned with the study of the material world.
Hence, this whole discussion is kinda pointless.

And yes, we humans can't fully grasp the universe, and that is the reason why we shouldn't make irrational and fantasy claims about it. We should remain moderate, but that is something the church leaders, Indian guru's in white robes, and millionaire mediums all fail to do.

The New Age Movement desperately plays the saviour card. It wants to save humanity and somehow save science, because it is ''materialistic'' and not as the Nam wants it to be.

God is a term/word/name given to what others in religions name it. Science sees and refers to differently.....call it God / Source / Life Force / Oneness/ Light / Photon Energy or Particles / Unified Field / Consciousness it is all the same.....just a matter of how one perceives it via their belief system which defines it to them according to that belief.