Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!

Originally Posted by AppleCore

Shivani - enjoyed your post (although I didn't understand some of the science-speak!). But got the gist of what you are saying.



I've always wondered about this. Do they (i.e. the 'experts') absolutely know that this is true? And how do they know? They obviously haven't examined every single snowflake that ever was, ever is and ever will be so I'm guessing there must be a scientific equation to prove it. Which is probably way too advanced for me to understand, so either I believe the equation without question, or wonder about it. I'm a wonderer.



Nice thought. I think it could...but perhaps not in our lifetime.

Welcome on this Forum AppleCore.

Enjoy!

[AppleCore]

Thank you Legrande. I've been reading quite a few posts in this particular section and enjoying them loads.

[winter light]

Originally Posted by Legrand

Hello,

I took the time to read each post on this thread, and I really enjoyed them. Please do not take this post personally. It is simply an opinion about the scientific approach in its attempt to find Universal and Immutable laws.

I find the scientific approach pretentious in its way to change what are only hypothesis about this world into Theories just after a few observations that concord with the initial hypothesis, thus creating archetypes as lens to see this world. This scientific approach only as been existing for a few hundred years and ever since it existed it wants to be the only flagship of the truth. It has at least the merit to have been a counterweight to institutionalize religious belief in history of mankind.

Lets just take the scientific approach conclusion in the time of Newton. For science in those time, time and space where the same no matter where you are in the Universe. The universe was made of matter moving like pool balls and if one could know the exact position and speed of each peaces of matter, one would be able to predict the position of each peace of matter at anytime in the Universe. It was a theory, that could not be changed. The laws of movement where set for eternity in the human mind of scientific of those times. The universe was infinite and always existed and will always exist according to those laws. Which contradicted the belief of spontaneous creation of some institutionalized religions.

Many people have forgotten or never learned what real science looks like. I found this lecture from Michael Faraday recently. I found it incredibly inspiring both in the approach for truth and beauty of the presentation. And it is an honor for me just to read it.

Michael Faraday’s Lecture - The Chemical History of a Candle
http://www.engineerguy.com/faraday/p...y-complete.pdf

Actual lecture starts around page 29.

"I will tell you in five lectures the Chemical History of a Candle. There is not a law under which any part of the universe is governed which does not come into play, and is touched upon in the chemistry of a candle. There is no better, there is no more open door by which you can enter into the study of science, than by considering thephysical phenomena of a candle. I trust, therefore, I shall not disappoint you in choosing this for my subject rather than any newer topic, which could not be better, were it even so good."

The current state of science has been one of the great disappointments in my life. Sometimes I wish I was born in the 19'th century when the modern approach was still emerging.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by winter light

The current state of science has been one of the great disappointments in my life. Sometimes I wish I was born in the 19'th century when the modern approach was still emerging.

In view of many exaggerations / misconceptions / syndicated lies , one may indeed feel sorry about current state of science . But that indeed is an opportunity expose all the same and restore the glory of original science without in any way diluting spirituality .

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by Legrand

Hello,

I took the time to read each post on this thread, and I really enjoyed them. Please do not take this post personally. It is simply an opinion about the scientific approach in its attempt to find Universal and Immutable laws.

I find the scientific approach pretentious in its way to change what are only hypothesis about this world into Theories just after a few observations that concord with the initial hypothesis, thus creating archetypes as lens to see this world. This scientific approach only as been existing for a few hundred years and ever since it existed it wants to be the only flagship of the truth. It has at least the merit to have been a counterweight to institutionalize religious belief in history of mankind.

...

The same goes for research done on consciousness using a scientific approach.

So, this was just an opinion of mine.

Regards

I agree. Science is valuable but far from infallible. Some laymen treat it as a religion.

[HITESH SHAH]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

The whole multidisciplinary approach needs to be drawn from different areas of science

Perfect . Only multi-disciplinary approach can help . Only a version of truth which holds out true from multiple disciplines can only be true .

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

but what if science needs to drop science to find the truth? Do you think it ever could?

I do seem to understand where it comes from . However I may put it differently. Sciences and in particular material sciences lay great emphasis on repeatability / quantifiable / calculable nature of axioms explaining cause and effect . For material science this is great and required because matter by itself operates in a very limited time/space. However when studying a very large thing like universe (where time and space are beyond human imagination) , insistence exact repeatability with exact time lines and exact quantification of cause and effect is not required and should not be insisted upon .Inability to quantify or repeat a phenomenon with precise time line does not mean absence of cause and effect .And whenever there is cause and effect , axioms could definitely deciphered.

All these dilemmas come because in last few centuries we have viewed science and religions/spirituality as diametrically opposite due to historical reasons . But that really is not the case . In original India scriptures (called Vedas meaning 'Shashtras' meaning sciences) , there was no such dilemma . The probable reason for this is that their subject matter was always "matter and spirit" where modern science subject matter is just "matter" . The result is that if u see the status of all science which require study of spirit as well (like psychology , economics , politics etc) are in a dilapidated status due to lack of multi-disciplinary approach and denial of spirit in the subject matter.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by HITESH SHAH

In view of many exaggerations / misconceptions / syndicated lies , one may indeed feel sorry about current state of science . But that indeed is an opportunity expose all the same and restore the glory of original science without in any way diluting spirituality .

But what would our belief systems be like without Science?

There would be no quantum physics, no Big Bang, no computers and no.... this forum.

Oddly, this topic was titled "Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!"

[Altair]

Originally Posted by BigJohn

But what would our belief systems be like without Science?

[/i][/b]

We'd be back in the times where smallpox, rabies and black death would be lurking around the corner. We'd have faith healers offering their services in the name of some lord, and we'd be told to simply meditate and do water fasts to cure any of these diseases. I've read such stories over the years, even in today's world there are some spiritual circles where people come with serious diseases and they are told to simply do water fasts, and then said people die. This is not helpful. The alternative 'movement' can ignore and bury science at its own peril.

As for the link in the 1st post..
It serves a christian agenda. Second, complexity does not show there's a ''creator'' or any ''intelligent design''. And such beliefs in a creator comically reduce what complexity is about. It's not about a 'perfect' and orderly world as how ''god made it'' in the bible. Also, if anything, science shows us there's no need to invoke a creator to explain natural phenomena.

Originally Posted by Legrand

Hello,

.....I find the scientific approach pretentious in its way to change what are only hypothesis about this world into Theories just after a few observations that concord with the initial hypothesis, thus creating archetypes as lens to see this world. This scientific approach only as been existing for a few hundred years and ever since it existed it wants to be the only flagship of the truth. It has at least the merit to have been a counterweight to institutionalize religious belief in history of mankind.......

Yes, well though many of the weaknesses of our system that you point out are true, I think it is important not to personify "science" or the "scientific approach", or to confuse the hammer with the carpenter.

If there is a beef to be had, it is with the scientist, not the method. Some wrongly apply it, some have too much faith in its predictions or indications, and some missapply it for reasons of their own. The scientific method is still probably the best tool we have for discovering realities we may hold in common, but of course, any tool is limited by the competence of its user and the outcome is dependent upon their intent. A high quality hammer still delivers poor results in the hand of an incompetent carpenter, and even the most skilled carpenter can do a **** (carp?) job if their overriding aim is to cut corners and drive up their profits. Science is still in the end a human endeavour.

For example, censoring software is only as good as the list of words to be censored.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by Legrand

So, in the brief history of those few hundred years of scientific approach, we passed from a world created from god, to an infinite world in time and space, to back to a singularity creating the world to back again to a world that is always auto creating itself.

You seem very learned in science. What developments/research in science are you monitoring now ? How are you approaching the investigation of the nature of Reality?