Science Has Found Proof of the Existence of God!

[Serenity69]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er9D00DXQQs

[wstein]

So much over reaching.

1. It has a beginning: That doesn't mean it was created by a god. Update, there are other theories the suggest 'bangs' happen repeatedly when (mem)branes collide [which removes anything special about this particular beginning].
2. Fine tuned for life: Not really that fine tuned, most of the universe does not support life, its empty and cold. True that some constants are close to preventing life but only as we know it. Other sets of constants produce other stable universes with potentials for other kinds of life.
3. DNA complexity: Its only mindbogglingly complex as compared to man's limited progress. Update, recent experiments show that basic materials in DNA are fairly common near stars/planets. Recent ideas/experiemnts are starting to show how the basic material could combine into crude cells and longer molecule chains.

Before you get the idea, I don't' believe the universe is created, think again. I know it was created.

It's just that none of the above proves anything other than man's very limited understanding of the universe.

Originally Posted by wstein

So much over reaching.

1. It has a beginning: That doesn't mean it was created by a god. Update, there are other theories the suggest 'bangs' happen repeatedly when (mem)branes collide [which removes anything special about this particular beginning].
2. Fine tuned for life: Not really that fine tuned, most of the universe does not support life, its empty and cold. True that some constants are close to preventing life but only as we know it. Other sets of constants produce other stable universes with potentials for other kinds of life.
3. DNA complexity: Its only mindbogglingly complex as compared to man's limited progress. Update, recent experiments show that basic materials in DNA are fairly common near stars/planets. Recent ideas/experiemnts are starting to show how the basic material could combine into crude cells and longer molecule chains.

Before you get the idea, I don't' believe the universe is created, think again. I know it was created.

It's just that none of the above proves anything other than man's very limited understanding of the universe.

Not to mention that with a multidimensional many worlds multiverse, there are are perhaps infinitely many rolls of the "constants dice". Given that any probability, no matter how small, times infinity, equals infinity, not only is it a certainty that a universe with fine tuned constants such as ours will exist, but that there are infinitely many of them.

However, given the impacts on time coming out of relativity, perhaps one cannot say the universe was created, only that the multiverse is.

Of course, both of these concepts are abstractions that are beyond the human mind to hold in their entirety, so who knows what lies beyond them. There is always room for God, but the more dependent we try to make proof of God on the truth of our own human mythologies and pseudoscientific misinterpretations of facts, the more inaccessible and unlikely God becomes. The more someone tries to prove "God" to me by trying to convince me of the truth of the Bible, the more discredited the idea of "God" becomes. While I find wisdom and value in parts and pieces of that book, it is not by a long shot the first place I go to find God.

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by wstein

So much over reaching.

1. It has a beginning: That doesn't mean it was created by a god. Update, there are other theories the suggest 'bangs' happen repeatedly when (mem)branes collide [which removes anything special about this particular beginning].
2. Fine tuned for life: Not really that fine tuned, most of the universe does not support life, its empty and cold. True that some constants are close to preventing life but only as we know it. Other sets of constants produce other stable universes with potentials for other kinds of life.
3. DNA complexity: Its only mindbogglingly complex as compared to man's limited progress. Update, recent experiments show that basic materials in DNA are fairly common near stars/planets. Recent ideas/experiemnts are starting to show how the basic material could combine into crude cells and longer molecule chains.

Before you get the idea, I don't' believe the universe is created, think again. I know it was created.

It's just that none of the above proves anything other than man's very limited understanding of the universe.

This present, "evolved", situation in which we find ourselves is the result of a "fall".
As Einstein stated, "modes in which we think, not conditions in which we live."

Question is? A fall from what?
See what and who "stars" represent throughout the Biblical scriptures.

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.

Then came the discovery of atoms and even smaller parts constituting matter, the relative theory of Einstein, the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg that limits our ability to know the state of matter at a very small scale, etc. Time and space became relative according to our speed relatively to other systems. The speed of light became limited and constant, it was not infinite anymore. The archetypes changed again, thus changing completely the way of Scientifics to look at the world. New theories where born, new laws where made to explain this world, always in the limited perspective of the scientific approach.

On a cosmological point of view, came with this new thread the Big Bang theory, only based on three types of observation. The Universe then came from a singularity and we where even able to say with great conviction how many millions of years ago.

Again, all this is changing, scientific don’t agree anymore that the universe was created from a singularity with the observation of matter being created all the time in the center of galaxies, with this new concept of dark matter, etc. Some even say today that the void of space is denser in energy that matter itself. Matter pops up from the “void” all the time from the microscopic level and returns to it. This would mean, to take an image, that matter is like bubbles of air in the dense ocean instead of being solid rocks in the empty space. So, no ones agree today in the scientific community if the Universe is born or unborn, infinite in time and space or not.

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.

Time and space where immutable at one point of this history, now they are relative. The speed of light is now considered immutable. But what says that the speed of light may not change at anytime? The same with all those basic constants that definite the laws the scientific community as found?

With so many changes in trying to define the origin of matter, if matter has an origin in Time in this Universe, how would this approach would be able to define the origin of God. And then which God? Would it be the conscious God tied to matter in this universe. The Creator God that as the power to project a void of Itself to see himself and thus creating matter? Would it be the unborn God that has no Name? Who knows?...

Do not take me wrong, the scientific approach did procure many nice things, and not so nice ones also, for the human population. But those are only recipes and techniques of manipulating the matter. They are not Universal laws. Like one preparing food from a recipe for a meal. The recipe those do not give any real insight on the food itself only ways to bring it to taste like we want it to for dinner.

Of course, research is still being done with a scientific approach, but those researches are mostly biased now by the institution it has became, like religions did.

To take a small example of how this research is biased, lest just take for example the research done by the pharmacology industry. To test a medication effect of a new medication, they will always test its effect against a group that is given only a pill or an injection of a sugar-based solution. This because they are aware of the placebo effect, meaning that if someone believes enough that he or she is given a real medication to cure the illness, there is an ability of the body/consciousness relation to heal the body by itself without the use of medication. The pharmacology industry does not understand this placebo effect, and does not want to understand it, all they want is to substitute it by their medication they can sell. Yet they recognise that this effect really exists. No real money and time are really spent in understanding this placebo effect and how we could find new ways to help people to heal themselves by amplifying the power of this effect.

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

So, this was just an opinion of mine.

Regards

[Morpheus]

The tripod of mutual agteement and support is this...

One, the Holy Scriptures.

Two, the very many anecdotal NDE, and OBE accounts.

Three, what science has been revealing to us since Einstein.

[peteyzen]

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.

Then came the discovery of atoms and even smaller parts constituting matter, the relative theory of Einstein, the uncertainty principle of Heisenberg that limits our ability to know the state of matter at a very small scale, etc. Time and space became relative according to our speed relatively to other systems. The speed of light became limited and constant, it was not infinite anymore. The archetypes changed again, thus changing completely the way of Scientifics to look at the world. New theories where born, new laws where made to explain this world, always in the limited perspective of the scientific approach.

On a cosmological point of view, came with this new thread the Big Bang theory, only based on three types of observation. The Universe then came from a singularity and we where even able to say with great conviction how many millions of years ago.

Again, all this is changing, scientific don’t agree anymore that the universe was created from a singularity with the observation of matter being created all the time in the center of galaxies, with this new concept of dark matter, etc. Some even say today that the void of space is denser in energy that matter itself. Matter pops up from the “void” all the time from the microscopic level and returns to it. This would mean, to take an image, that matter is like bubbles of air in the dense ocean instead of being solid rocks in the empty space. So, no ones agree today in the scientific community if the Universe is born or unborn, infinite in time and space or not.

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.

Time and space where immutable at one point of this history, now they are relative. The speed of light is now considered immutable. But what says that the speed of light may not change at anytime? The same with all those basic constants that definite the laws the scientific community as found?

With so many changes in trying to define the origin of matter, if matter has an origin in Time in this Universe, how would this approach would be able to define the origin of God. And then which God? Would it be the conscious God tied to matter in this universe. The Creator God that as the power to project a void of Itself to see himself and thus creating matter? Would it be the unborn God that has no Name? Who knows?...

Do not take me wrong, the scientific approach did procure many nice things, and not so nice ones also, for the human population. But those are only recipes and techniques of manipulating the matter. They are not Universal laws. Like one preparing food from a recipe for a meal. The recipe those do not give any real insight on the food itself only ways to bring it to taste like we want it to for dinner.

Of course, research is still being done with a scientific approach, but those researches are mostly biased now by the institution it has became, like religions did.

To take a small example of how this research is biased, lest just take for example the research done by the pharmacology industry. To test a medication effect of a new medication, they will always test its effect against a group that is given only a pill or an injection of a sugar-based solution. This because they are aware of the placebo effect, meaning that if someone believes enough that he or she is given a real medication to cure the illness, there is an ability of the body/consciousness relation to heal the body by itself without the use of medication. The pharmacology industry does not understand this placebo effect, and does not want to understand it, all they want is to substitute it by their medication they can sell. Yet they recognise that this effect really exists. No real money and time are really spent in understanding this placebo effect and how we could find new ways to help people to heal themselves by amplifying the power of this effect.

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

So, this was just an opinion of mine.

Regards

Great post !

[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.