Can Science Reveal God?

[Lord_Viskey]

We could make a colossal discovery that shifts the scientific paradigm towards another direction,

I can't see this as ever happening until we relinquish our grip, as sentient beings, on the "tactile" features (and maybe even the numerical definitions) of reality as being the only "real" reality.

While I accept that the mind functions with chemistry, chemistry does not explain the depths, continuity and adhesion of its formed images. Closer consideration of what archetypes are and how they combine reality to one's perception of it seems to be a necessary direction to find these answers.

Materialism and Idealism are still two polarities found in a larger picture - and only when that picture reconciles and includes each of these aspects can God be proven to have always existed as the "alchemist" putting together various and specific energy from an Absolute pool of potential.

The human intellect consistently looks upon reality with dualistic comprehension when it is a unitarily inclusive phenomenon. That is why man, nor science, can definitively "put its finger on" the answer. Even as it has been proven in the quantum sciences that an observation of reality cannot be accurately made without the inclusion of consciousness, science still wants to view reality in this pseudo-objective manner. In doing so, he removes himself from nature, reality, and an (so called) "exterior" God. Because he views his scientific studies from the position of a "micro" scaled omniscience of self, he discounts any other "macro" omniscience present that may also be responsible for the reality he observes.

To me, it seems, that scientific man enjoys viewing himself as a horse wearing blinders as he plods along the course of discovery.

[Kisen]

Originally Posted by Lord_Viskey

To me, it seems, that scientific man enjoys viewing himself as a horse wearing blinders as he plods along the course of discovery.

I see what you mean and in most cases I tend to agree.

However, we do have scientists who try to explore the outer possibilities even though they are few in number and I follow a few. It is a battle between materialism and consciousness right now.

You can actually both be scientific and spiritual by gathering your own data and interpreting it while doing personal verification, being your own scientist, an explorer.

Unfortunately, we can't really just tell all scientists to just sit down and meditate, causing them to try and create conclusions about things they never experienced. The closest we can get to mass discovery is something like quantum physics.

Maybe this knowledge is not meant for the masses on purpose.

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Kisen

Maybe this knowledge is not meant for the masses on purpose.

I'd love it if you would explain what you mean here!!

[Kisen]

Originally Posted by Busby

I'd love it if you would explain what you mean here!!

Sure! I will just give a brief explanation for now, if you'd like to know more I can explain even further as I have a theory (from a scientist that spent a lifetime obtaining this knowledge) that I follow and is a bit lengthy :)

I start from the idea that this "reality" is a virtual one out of many others (consciousness is a fundamental property of reality).

I then look at our current reality as a learning lab where we come here to learn lessons to grow our quality of consciousness. For this to be effective, knowledge of the "big picture" would be kept to a minimum, otherwise we would not take it as seriously. You can only learn certain lessons by the constraints placed upon this particular section of physical reality.

That is not to say that only certain people are allowed to have certain knowledge. On the contrary, everyone can learn to tap into what is considered "paranormal" but as our reality is a consistent one, people all have different beliefs, philosophies and egos which restrict their potential knowledge base. If people didn't have these differing views on life, then we would not learn anything from each other. This is why I consider beliefs to be "dangerous" and limiting.

When I look at all the different religions which have created along the years, I see a kind of "Looking at the same 'Truth' from different perspectives". This includes Atheism. We communicate using different metaphorical tools and people fight over which one has the best tools. This leads to dogma. I try to avoid using certain terminology as it can be interpreted in many different ways, especially the word 'God'.

Care must be taken when trying to scientifically approach these things. You would be surprised by the difference in reaction by using the word 'Soul' versus 'Consciousness'. The metaphor used can trigger an emotional response in people which can mean the difference between acceptance and rejection. It is just the way human beings are which is why it makes a great learning opportunity.

I like this quote from Einstein:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I hope this helps!

[Busby]

Originally Posted by Kisen

Sure! I will just give a brief explanation for now, if you'd like to know more I can explain even further as I have a theory (from a scientist that spent a lifetime obtaining this knowledge) that I follow and is a bit lengthy :)

I start from the idea that this "reality" is a virtual one out of many others (consciousness is a fundamental property of reality).

I then look at our current reality as a learning lab where we come here to learn lessons to grow our quality of consciousness. For this to be effective, knowledge of the "big picture" would be kept to a minimum, otherwise we would not take it as seriously. You can only learn certain lessons by the constraints placed upon this particular section of physical reality.

That is not to say that only certain people are allowed to have certain knowledge. On the contrary, everyone can learn to tap into what is considered "paranormal" but as our reality is a consistent one, people all have different beliefs, philosophies and egos which restrict their potential knowledge base. If people didn't have these differing views on life, then we would not learn anything from each other. This is why I consider beliefs to be "dangerous" and limiting.

When I look at all the different religions which have created along the years, I see a kind of "Looking at the same 'Truth' from different perspectives". This includes Atheism. We communicate using different metaphorical tools and people fight over which one has the best tools. This leads to dogma. I try to avoid using certain terminology as it can be interpreted in many different ways, especially the word 'God'.

Care must be taken when trying to scientifically approach these things. You would be surprised by the difference in reaction by using the word 'Soul' versus 'Consciousness'. The metaphor used can trigger an emotional response in people which can mean the difference between acceptance and rejection. It is just the way human beings are which is why it makes a great learning opportunity.

I like this quote from Einstein:

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

I hope this helps!

It did indeed help. Thanks very much. It's not so far away from my own understanding of evolving processes.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kisen

I agree with you have said, we seek answers based on questions we have yet to answer.

I apologize, should have clarified further about what I meant.

Ever since Newton, we have a model of reality based on an objective, physical reality and I have observed a tendency to try to 'squeeze' everything into this model.

That's not completely accurate. Ever since Einstein's relativity, subjectivity has been increasingly pervasive in the sciences. Bohr wrote extensively on subjectivity in physics, as did Heisenberg. Since that time, the base philosophy of physics has been, not that we observe an objective universe, but that we have a wave function which collapses into a particle, which itself has no structure, but exhibits particular properties when interacting.

This was what I meant by the word 'belief' as it can always be the case that reality is different (like what some parts of science are moving towards). It is difficult to explain some concepts when people have a belief of how reality 'should' be rather then what it 'could' be.

The belief in physics is expressed in it's most basic philosophy, which describes a relationship between an observer, his question, and the universe. It basically says that the universe is essentially non-descript, but the observer questions his experience. The universe answers in context with that question. This mean that physics isn't there to say what the universe 'is like' - it's only concerned with what we can verifiably say about our universal experience.

We could make a colossal discovery that shifts the scientific paradigm towards another direction, which would become the new 'should'. Most people are not seekers of truth and scientists are the high priests of modern society so we have beliefs between one extreme and another.

The paradigm has shifted markedly with Copernicus and Galileo, then Newton transformed it with Laws of gravity and motion, which Einstein revolutionised with relativity, closely followed by the uncertainty QM. Since QM we have not seen a remarkable paradigm shift, but since there has been very little development in QM since the 1950's, we're on the brink of one. The philosophical conjecture that offers an alternative is very similar to the spiritual rhetoric, that being a 'conscious universe' (Planck, Schrodinger, Bohr already alluded to this in the early 1900's) - so that's likely to be the next direction for physics.

[Lord_Viskey]

originally posted by Gem

This mean that physics isn't there to say what the universe 'is like' - it's only concerned with what we can verifiably say about our universal experience.

This seems to be an interesting statement. In your own "universal experience" - do you include yourself as an aspect "within" it, or as a "lone sentience" being separate from this universe? In other words, if physics only verifies one's universal experience - how does one reconcile themselves with that universal ... shall I say, "organism"? What do you consider as the "pecking order" of influence within this universal experience - does it manipulate you, or do you manipulate it? Is this a give and take? if so, what do you believe is your contribution to the universe on the whole - not just to other sentient beings in your proximity of influence.

[Mangobing]

I think the unavoidable way science proves God is that they cannot prove it. The "void" they have is their positive for its existence. Just as they cannot prove so many things, the missing links and the things we have to accept are never gonna know. I think human (not even science) pride is in knowing everything. We should have the conscience and common sense to know there is no way we can know it all. There are things we are never gonna know. And is not a matter of will, but a FACT. Until proven opposite of course.. just like god's existence.
So until science proves it all, (in when we would have a %100 confirmation of god existence or not) then i guess we can have a positive.

[mickiel]

I am convinced that we can only be conscious of, those things we are conscious of. I am conscious of obeying the law, many people are, and many are not. I am conscious of, treating women with respect, there are many men who just are not conscious of that; its just not in them. I am conscious of God and how science is involved in it; many are not;

Observe;

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Science_Confirms_the_Bible

[mickiel]

A rather lengthy interesting article;

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/scie...the_bible.html