Has science merely disproved the notion of a personal god?

[ebola?]

Nice post, pseudo.

I hear you regarding atheism. There's a lot of room for belief in "something more" between it and the absolutist conceptions of Abrahamic belief systems.

Well, atheism posits that no god exists, but doesn't really specify what one believes in instead. Sure, I think that many atheists privilege too greatly our common sense view of how material things work, but this isn't really a general characteristic of atheism.

Then again, agnosticism is existentially dissatisfying in the extreme

I think of agnosticism as specifying certainty of belief (ie, low) without saying anything about content. I can lack confidence in my view of what undergirds reality entirely, but my best guess as to how things work will likely have some content. Alternately, I can be deeply agnostic about whether my headache is due to dehydration or caffeine deprivation.

Then again, agnosticism is existentially dissatisfying in the extreme, which makes it difficult to get on board with. Still, it's the most defensible and healthiest for modern society.

Ah, but can there be differences in thought patterns and behaviors who follow certain religions? Does this, if psychology is to be of any use, proof? So for instance a Buddhist who adheres to all its codes, is this not a psychical expression of a psychological presence of mind; which, would otherwise not exist?

This is essentially a sociologized view of religion, whereby we make gods real through our practices that center around them (and thus implicitly that deitys are convoluted refractions of the power of society over the individual psyche, that god represents society to us).

ebola

 

[swilow]

No offense but that's a pretty arrogant statement. What makes you think that?

I'm not sure if its arrogant per se, but is possibly somewhat presumptuous. But the reason I think that, and the reason I feel confident in my assertion, is related to the immutability of the 'laws' of physics and their constancy. Given the fact that it has never been demonstrated that the entirety of the physical constants and constraints that literally govern the universe are, even slightly, dependant on human will and desire, it seems implausible that, even once, were these laws contravened based on the desires of an individual. But, and moreover, there has been no reasonable and well documented answering of prayer in a literal and tangible way that more then one human can agree on. Sure, humans may say that 'god works in mysterious ways' but that's a mere attempt at assigning purpose to sheer chance/randomness. What we want and feel we need is meaningless to the universe.

I find it liberating, that I don't need to waste my time sending my desires to heaven. I can spend my time fruitfully in the dirt

OK but if this nothing is actually something that still doesn't solve anything really.. that something still has been given an initial impulse or motivation to action. The second sentence is just sophistry, you're just reducing this impulse or motivation to an inevitability based on statistical probability, which doesn't work because infinity is not a number.

Could it be that 'nothing', as a quality, is not actually real? Science has shown us that, by calling things that are unexplainable (to current scientists) 'dark matter' or 'dark energy'. These things appear to 'exist' in areas we have, since the dawn of human thought, considered to be 'space' or 'nothing'. Perhaps our own lives, with their bookends of birth and death, have given us the mistaken idea of beginnings and endings. Perhaps these things have always existed in one for or another. Conservation of energy and such laws could suggest that. Unless we talk of beginnings as the point in which the universe took on its current observable form. Which is no real beginning, anymore then the beginning of a day is a true temporal moment and not completely dependant on arbitrary subjectivity and geographical positioning.

I don't really agree with what I am positing here, but its just vaguely interesting to my mind.

 

[Ninae]

How? What we describe as "science", or more accurately through science, needs an original cause. At least it's not very scientific to assume that all of it has come from nothing.

What we call science is pretty much a term for what we know of the material or third dimension that we reside in. Most of us know very little of the higher dimensions (going up to 12).

As for the idea of a Prime Creator I think that's a given, given this Creation needs a power source and designer behind it.

 

[ebola?]

How? What we describe as "science", or more accurately through science, needs an original cause.

But wouldn't this cause too need a cause to explain its existence? In don't think this poses a problem to science that's particularly damning...

What we call science is pretty much a term for what we know of the material or third dimension that we reside in.

This is not how dimensions function; a dimension is not really a place with particular characteristics. Rather, in this case, a dimension is a direction in which on may move, orthogonal to other dimensions.

Most of us know very little of the higher dimensions (going up to 12).

Why twelve? M-theory / string theory predicts 11 dimensions due to the requirements of mathematical consistency.

As for the idea of a Prime Creator I think that's a given, given this Creation needs a power source and designer behind it.

So basically, a creator must exist because we can't imagine any other explanation for what we observe? Not too convincing...

ebola

 

[Ninae]

Apparantly, God and Creation has always existed, there is no beginning, because it has always been there, and yes, it is very confusing to the human mind because we're not used to thinking in those terms.

But that is because we haven't really been taught how time/space/dimensions work, as you say, and I also think it's connected to certain limitations in our consciousness. Like a spider wouldn't understand what human life is all about or what the purpose of it all is and wonder if it will ever understand.

And, yes, the level where the highest reside would also have to be described by science, so it doesn't really contract from your argument. I wasn't trying to say there is no such thing as science above this dimension or say there needs to be one or the other. And I can't say for sure, but I've heard God resides in the 12th dimension (with the Seraphim guiding his throne).

P.S. There might not need to be a higher deity to produce the material world, but how does consciousness come about? Consciousness begets consciousness. That's the only way it can come into this world.

But when all is said and done God can first and foremost be felt in the heart and not be found on the rational plane.

 

[ebola?]

And I can't say for sure, but I've heard God resides in the 12th dimension (with the Seraphim guiding his throne).

You'll need to more precisely specify and elaborate upon what you mean by "dimension" when used in this type of way.

Consciousness begets consciousness.

What suggests this?

God can first and foremost be felt in the heart and not be found on the rational plane.

Can you please further describe what the "rational plane" is and how it compares and contrasts with other "planes"?

ebola

 

[Ninae]

Look, I don't know everything and don't quite understand what a "dimension" is either, so I don't really want to go into it that much.

But from my understanding it's a sort of higher "density" or another world we can't sense or have access to until we get there. Like Trees are on a lower density than us and don't really live in our world or have access to our experiences even if they have a form of consciousness (Treehuggers anyone?).

That's another thing I associate with dimensions - you need to raise your vibration/consciousness to get to a higher dimension. So that's how we get to the 5fth or heavenly dimension, by developing a higer consciousness. Also, I think they blend in with our dimension and they can see us, but we can't see them, just like trees can't see us. But that's more spiritual take on it, which might not be what you have in mind, but that's what I mean by it.

Consciousness = a conscious living being. Like a human, animal, or even a flower. Good luck carving that out of a block of rock. I mean that a conscious being can only be brought into this world by another conscious being, unless you're Jesus and maybe didn't need a father to bring you in (though that's questionable).

Although rocks are also supposed to have a kind of consciousness, especially crystals and precious stones, I think they reside in the 1st dimension and only have a vague sense of their own existence and experience (mostly subconscious). But they have a form of consciousness and when they're ready they move up to the plant kingdom, etc. Or the 2nd dimension.

The rational plane - like we're debating now, using our minds or reasoning abilities. As opposed to just feeling the presence of Christ or God alive in your heart. I guess that's what you would call a mystical experience, but you need to experience it to really understand it, and many of us do.

 

[motiv311]

I kinda get what Ninae is trying to say, but I wouldn't take her word for it, she's clearly involved in some kind of "new age" crystal healers energy cult; as she believes she is a "reincarnated angel" - not to mention on top of all this she does drugs (duh? we all do lol) - (sorry Ninae, I love ya! and I'm just givng you a hard time- but some things are just too far out there)

I do believe in God, I think Atheism is stupid and unevolved, literally the most hipster thing you can do/say these days besides having 9 warm pabst beers in your hand-made back-pack ; is that you are an agnostic. I'd rather meet an atheist even than an agnostic these days. Fence-sitters. (I don't know what I believe in!) Yeah it is wise to admit how un-wise you are in actuality- the paradoxical thing being that being aware of how little you know; demonstrates how much you in fact do know.

Yet- sometimes standing up for something you've experienced / come to understand - is even more important than being a trendy "agnostic" .." I don't believe in god I believe IN SCIENCE!" -- how dumb. There is a creator, he lives inside and all around you, he enabled you to have a body that works to house your soul in such a fashion that you can be a creator yourself and bring the intangible heavenly things into physical reality. Whether you are a sculptor or an engineer or a singer.... you are using your brain, hands, feet, mouth eyes and SOUL to bring the invisible into physical existence. WE all have gifts and purpose which we are supposed to exercise for the betterment of ourselves our planet; and for the glory of our father who is in heaven

 

[swilow]

^What is wrong with requiring more then opinion to judge the absolute structure of reality? I don't see it.

Claims of hipsterism and trendiness are meaningless and irrelevant to this topic.

Look, I don't know everything and don't quite understand what a "dimension" is either, so I don't really want to go into it that much.

But from my understanding it's a sort of higher "density" or another world we can't sense or have access to until we get there. Like Trees are on a lower density than us and don't really live in our world or have access to our experiences even if they have a form of consciousness (Treehuggers anyone?).

That's another thing I associate with dimensions - you need to raise your vibration/consciousness to get to a higher dimension. So that's how we get to the 5fth or heavenly dimension, by developing a higer consciousness. Also, I think they blend in with our dimension and they can see us, but we can't see them, just like trees can't see us. But that's more spiritual take on it, which might not be what you have in mind, but that's what I mean by it.

Consciousness = a conscious living being. Like a human, animal, or even a flower. Good luck carving that out of a block of rock. I mean that a conscious being can only be brought into this world by another conscious being, unless you're Jesus and maybe didn't need a father to bring you in (though that's questionable).

Although rocks are also supposed to have a kind of consciousness, especially crystals and precious stones, I think they reside in the 1st dimension and only have a vague sense of their own existence and experience (mostly subconscious). But they have a form of consciousness and when they're ready they move up to the plant kingdom, etc. Or the 2nd dimension.

The rational plane - like we're debating now, using our minds or reasoning abilities. As opposed to just feeling the presence of Christ or God alive in your heart. I guess that's what you would call a mystical experience, but you need to experience it to really understand it, and many of us do.

Its senseless to me to indicate that you don't actually understand what you are saying but then continue saying it. FWIW, the first 4 dimensions are length, breadth, width and time. Plants exists within these four dimensions, as do rocks and trees. The idea that god exists in the '12th dimension' is perhaps misguided. Surely god, who can lack nothing, must exist within these dimensions also; it would have to, given its apparent omniscience and omnipotence. And yet we see no evidence within these four dimensions of this sort of presence. Hence my claim, that a scientific examination of the world has negated the idea of a local, accessible and personal god.

Which doesn't negate any other conception of god though. Just the nearby god of our earthly mythology.

Peace

 

[Ninae]

I think we see this so differently it's not really discussable. Unlike many I don't see any conflict between God and science. I think if there is a God and a Heaven it must surely be something that can be described in scientific terms, it's just above us.

And, yes, I do think God permeates all the lower dimensions, sometimes you can feel him in nature, just that we don't reside in his. Apart from what is called our Higer Self or I am Presence, which lives on that level and is a god in it's own right and is one with all, or impersonal.

Then there is also that thing called our "soul" which is our personal self and have the characteristics of all we have achieved through our many incarnations in this and other dimensions. These views are considerably widespread, though, not just my imagination.

 

[RichardMooner]

The universe and its physical laws seem to indicate that certain functionality is innate and rigid, and that no matter how hard we pray and how much we desire, the laws of physics will always remain immutable; no prayer has ever truly been answered.

Obviously there are large contextual differences, but through reason, we know that inside of the event horizon of a black hole, the laws of physics are broken down and no longer apply. Even the law of conservation is under debate as to whether it breaks down or not. I haven't read much of the Hawking V. Susskind debates, but I know that neither know whether they're correct or not and we're still hoping that we will be able to observe Hawking Radiation (if it exists) using the LHC. I guess what I'm getting at here is, if we know that the laws of physics are not unchangeable inside of a black hole, why would an all powerful being be incapable of violating those laws as well?

 

[Ninae]

Me and many others have had many prayers answered and many incredible synchronicities happen. They might not come in the way you expect. When I call for Jesus and can feel his presence and healing power flowing through me, for instance, that is a kind of answeared prayer.

Anyway, to my understanding, the whole point of this dimension is for us to have free will, learn the consequences of our mistakes, and learn to achieve things by ourselves. So that we can become more like God. If our every prayer was answeared, or we could just pray to get what we wanted or get ourselves out of an undesirable situation, we would learn nothing and wouldn't learn or grow at all.

So then this dimension and all the struggle we go through in it would be pretty pointless as I think it's what it was (partly) created for. But that's just how I see it. Then again, I also believe in incarnation and a gradual evolution of the soul.

 

[Foreigner]

Science has disproved fuck all in this department, and as new spiritual systems that break with religion continue to evolve in this era, people are seeing it more and more. Scientists wonder why so many people are becoming alienated, and it's because they continue to make epistemological assertions about the nature of spirit that they have no business commenting on. They blame religion for trying to be scientific, but then turn around and try to dismantle spiritual systems out of spite.

Science, as it is currently structured, should be relied on for providing material based infrastructure to humanity: chemistry, biology, engineering, interventional medicine, geology, etc. That's all. It should stay away from informing spirituality because it's not competent enough to do so yet. It's still too infantile (not in technique, but in consciousness) to bridge the metaphysical gap that it will one day be required to do if humanity is to survive.

Where we need reform is in the Abrahamic faiths and their old world understanding of the way Divinity operates: as a punishing, attached, conditional loving, shame-inducing force that loves us only as long as we do what we're told. What we need to do is revisit the premise that God is unconditional love, no matter what, and that the universe is friendly. Start there, and really believe it. American Christianity and its creepy Jesus needs this reformation more than anywhere. We need to stop shaming each other, judging each other, and stealing each other's money in return for temporary forgiveness. It's nobody's business but God's and God is in the business of love. There's too many wounded people walking around holding their shame and guilt close to their hearts, and not living authentically. We need to revisit the notion that the Divine never leaves us, no matter what, and is on our side. In line with the other P&S thread about women, I believe that reintroduction of the Divine Feminine will fix this problem. God, as Americans currently view Him, is a patriarchal asshole.

 

[swilow]

Obviously there are large contextual differences, but through reason, we know that inside of the event horizon of a black hole, the laws of physics are broken down and no longer apply. Even the law of conservation is under debate as to whether it breaks down or not. I haven't read much of the Hawking V. Susskind debates, but I know that neither know whether they're correct or not and we're still hoping that we will be able to observe Hawking Radiation (if it exists) using the LHC. I guess what I'm getting at here is, if we know that the laws of physics are not unchangeable inside of a black hole, why would an all powerful being be incapable of violating those laws as well?

You certainly have a point here; but, in regards to the breakdown of the laws of physics within a black hole, we are not referring to a lawless and totally unpredictable phenomenon but an occurrence which is more aptly described by quantum mechanics. Even the unpredictability of a black hole turns out to be predictable and open to description mathematically. But that's beside the point really.

And yes, an all powerful being can do what ever they want- it just doesn't seem that there is any evidence that this has actually ever occurred once in the tininess of human history. Which in itself is quite suggestive; where was the personal god of the jews from 200,00 BCE to about 3000 BCE? Why did this god emerge so recently (in terms of our planets history)? For an all-powerful god, why are the effects he wreaks so obscure and prone to be overlooked? Why do we as humans even believe that our desires deserve to be met? For god to answer a prayer, surely his criteria would have to preclude granting prayers which negatively impact others. But if that is so, then god must also use his knowledge of future events when determining whether a prayer should be answered. Which implies that the future has been written; and surely, it would have been written by god as there can be no higher or more powerful being in existence. Which means that we are praying for god to change a situation that only HE could have caused in the first place. Given that, I don't understand why we don't all hate god with a passion. And yet, what this actually implies to me is that our conception of god is wildly mistaken and we are doing both ourselves and our beautiful planet a mighty injustice by creating an unreasonable, unknowable and distant god, that we all acknowledge as distant and difficult to communicate with; so difficult that we can never seem to say for certain whether god is speaking to us and what he is speaking about, so we assume he is doing so and we then interpret these assumptions to allow us to do whatever we fucking want :D

Don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not suggesting that science becomes the new religion, though I certainly know of atheists that feel that way. Worshipping of science or revering it is as pointless as worshipping English or French; these languages are arbritrary sounds enoding concepts that are intrinsic and fundamental. And that's all science does- it provides a framework to look at and describe the universe by using observation and mathematics as a language.

My conception of god is the pure Creator, whose input began and ended 13 billion years ago. The rest is up to us and, so far, organised mass religion has failed. I believe it is well past time to try something else now.

Peace

 

[RichardMooner]

You certainly have a point here; but, in regards to the breakdown of the laws of physics within a black hole, we are not referring to a lawless and totally unpredictable phenomenon but an occurrence which is more aptly described by quantum mechanics. Even the unpredictability of a black hole turns out to be predictable and open to description mathematically. But that's beside the point really.

And yes, an all powerful being can do what ever they want- it just doesn't seem that there is any evidence that this has actually ever occurred once in the tininess of human history. Which in itself is quite suggestive; where was the personal god of the jews from 200,00 BCE to about 3000 BCE? Why did this god emerge so recently (in terms of our planets history)? For an all-powerful god, why are the effects he wreaks so obscure and prone to be overlooked? Why do we as humans even believe that our desires deserve to be met? For god to answer a prayer, surely his criteria would have to preclude granting prayers which negatively impact others. But if that is so, then god must also use his knowledge of future events when determining whether a prayer should be answered. Which implies that the future has been written; and surely, it would have been written by god as there can be no higher or more powerful being in existence. Which means that we are praying for god to change a situation that only HE could have caused in the first place. Given that, I don't understand why we don't all hate god with a passion. And yet, what this actually implies to me is that our conception of god is wildly mistaken and we are doing both ourselves and our beautiful planet a mighty injustice by creating an unreasonable, unknowable and distant god, that we all acknowledge as distant and difficult to communicate with; so difficult that we can never seem to say for certain whether god is speaking to us and what he is speaking about, so we assume he is doing so and we then interpret these assumptions to allow us to do whatever we fucking want :D

Don't get me wrong; I'm certainly not suggesting that science becomes the new religion, though I certainly know of atheists that feel that way. Worshipping of science or revering it is as pointless as worshipping English or French; these languages are arbritrary sounds enoding concepts that are intrinsic and fundamental. And that's all science does- it provides a framework to look at and describe the universe by using observation and mathematics as a language.

My conception of god is the pure Creator, whose input began and ended 13 billion years ago. The rest is up to us and, so far, organised mass religion has failed. I believe it is well past time to try something else now.

Peace

I guess I would like to trace the verses about God being all knowing to the Greek and Hebrew, and see what it really says. I was actually looking at a verse that kind of had me puzzled the other day which was "God is not man, that he should lie, or change his mind" and my puzzledness came from the idea of a God who never changed his mind, and was essentially all knowing, so regardless of what I do, if I am destined to go to hell, I am going to hell. Which would eliminate the idea of free choice. But when I went and traced it back, it's doesn't state that he doesn't change his mind, it says that he does not repent. I guess I wonder whether we have fucked up on the idea of God foreseeing the future all of the time (not to say that he can't) , but whether he chooses not to. As for payer, Psalm

145:18 Psalm 145:18
The LORD is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth.

Proverbs 15:29
The LORD is far from the wicked but he hears the prayer of the righteous.

Mark 12:30-31

30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

I think the idea is that God would not answer any prayers that would do harm to others because whoever was calling on him to do so would be unrighteous.

 

[Ninae]

Willow, I have no problem with materialists. If you want to be a materialist, that's fine by me. But I think a materialist should stay a materialist and leave spirituality alone and not try to "proove" through science there is no God or anything else of a spiritual nature, which isn't possible and doesn't even make any sense. I don't get into arguments about science, as it's not my thing, and I appreciate the use of science even if it's probably on quite a primitive level still.

I also don't understand what you mean by saying if I don't understand all about something I shouldn't say anything? This is the Philosophy board after all where people question, wonder, and present theories. And who on this thread talking about dimensions, etc. have even 1% clue what they're talking about?

Get thee over to the Science board.

 

[infectedmushroom]

If there is a deity, no form of human thought, discourse or scientific evidence will be able to describe it in anything even closely resembling it's fullness.

To think otherwise is, in my opinion, arrogant.

For the sake of intellectual discussion and the philosophy, we'll be pondering it in every way imaginable until the time we disappear as a species.

 

[silas GUY]

man be-leave what is true to your soul ! the science will change with each experiment.

 

[swilow]

Willow, I have no problem with materialists. If you want to be a materialist, that's fine by me. But I think a materialist should stay a materialist and leave spirituality alone and not try to "proove" through science there is no God or anything else of a spiritual nature, which isn't possible and doesn't even make any sense. I don't get into arguments about science, as it's not my thing, and I appreciate the use of science even if it's probably on quite a primitive level still.

To be honest, I think you are misreading me significantly. I'm not proposing materialism, or suggesting that science has discredited god per se. I am just saying that, given the evidence and true knowledge that science has given us, perhaps our conceptualisation of god can now be updated. But ultimately, people can choose to believe whatever they want and I can chose so also.

I wonder at your rationale in trying to pigeonhole my views. One can be spiritual as well as being unconvinced of the benefit of organised religion.

I also don't understand what you mean by saying if I don't understand all about something I shouldn't say anything? This is the Philosophy board after all where people question, wonder, and present theories. And who on this thread talking about dimensions, etc. have even 1% clue what they're talking about?

I was hardly trying to repress your line of discussion, just pointing out (in the spirit of debate and discourse) that it sorta scuttles your boat if you say you don't know about a topic and then follow that with a decent-sized post specifically about that exact topic.

It is utterly against most philosophical schools of thought to try and negate open discussion by insinuating that it is contextually innapropriate. I really don't think it was me doing that here...

 

[Ninae]

I don't identify with any organised religion. The closest would be Gnostic Christianity, because of teachers like Peter Deunov who are more in that vein, or have a different approach than the typical Biblical on it. There are many other paths to God.

Mostly I aspire to become a better mystic, or someone who has direct personal spiritual experiences, and to learn from those who have. And I love Christ because of what he has done for me and shown himself to be real and alive.

I'm tired of being low-consciousness or not much higher than the average person, though. It has to stop. It was interesting to explore and learn from for a while and somehow I got lost in it. But it was only supposed to be temporary. That's not my role in Creation. I'm supposed to uplift the ones receptive to it. But I need to uplift myself first.