Science 'versus' God?

[dleviwing]

The base of modern science is "materialism" and "materialism" is proven to be pseudo science which has not been and cannot be tested to determine whether it is true or false. Therefore it is not science ! And that is a scientific fact !

Since you’re so keen on proof IC, show us the proof of a god or any deity. Opinions are quite worthless without scientific data to support them. Faith is only for those too lazy to learn truth.

[Infinite Consciousness]

Since you’re so keen on proof IC, show us the proof of a god or any deity. Opinions are quite worthless without scientific data to support them. Faith is only for those too lazy to learn truth.

dieviwing, As you are a materialist, and materialism is pseudo science isn't your belief in materialism based on faith - as materialism cannot be tested to determine its true or false status - isn't your belief in it based on faith and does that not make you one who is to lazy to learn the truth ?

There is no science without consciousness to test and determine true or false status ! Consciousness is non-material. God is non-material. Are there two absolutes ? Or is there a false God called Universal Mind or Brahman using the 92 % consciousness that we are not aware of and do not control ?

Is the so-called Intelligent Designer actually the mind and its thinking (which is described in mystic circles as the "Great Stupid"). God's creation is created from the "Word of God " it stands forever. There is nothing more to be designed or created it is perfect and complete in Itself.

The universal Mind or Brahman is the "Great Stupid" making repetitive creations as animated picture shows from the electro-magnetic energy of thought and imprisoning - controlling - and binding us to the "Wheel of Life" until we learn and experience the Light of Truth within our own consciousness for no one else can experience It for us we must become It and know It by "our own" conscious experience of it.

[Graybeard]

Dear IC

I take your first point that 'Materialism' is ultimately based on faith alone just as everything else is. I also take your second point that the Consciousness is the ultime arbiter of what we believe and understand.

You then say 'Consciousness is non-material. God is non-material.'

I get lost here. Are you saying that Consciousness = God. Or are you saying 'Consciousness exists or God exists, there can't be two absolutes'

Up to the point where you proved that Consciousness is an absolute is a logical proof, and I follow it. But why do you you deduce a relationship between Consciousness & God?

[Infinite Consciousness]

Dear IC

I take your first point that 'Materialism' is ultimately based on faith alone just as everything else is. I also take your second point that the Consciousness is the ultime arbiter of what we believe and understand.

You then say 'Consciousness is non-material. God is non-material.'

I get lost here. Are you saying that Consciousness = God. Or are you saying 'Consciousness exists or God exists, there can't be two absolutes'

Up to the point where you proved that Consciousness is an absolute is a logical proof, and I follow it. But why do you you deduce a relationship between Consciousness & God?

God is Pure Undifferentiated "Awareness - i.e. Infinite Consciousness which is omnipresent (present everywhere at the same time outside of time) and omniscient (knowing everything; having complete or infinite knowledge by virtue of being the source and base of everything).

God is Infinite Consciousness or Infinite Love i.e. pure existence or Immortality - and pure bliss or Love - i.e. the "Peace that Passeth All Understanding."

God is Pure Undifferentiated Awareness - Pure Awareness is god fully aware of its Consciousness as Infinite and complete within Itself !

God is absolute conscious awareness - Absolute Conscious Awareness is
God !

[austintorn@aol.com]

I’ve reached many mediative states in which the boundary of my self disappeared when all my thoughts were gone, with only pure awareness left, and I was it, rather than even noting it or feeling it, for that is still reaching out and meditation is really a taking in. After the self was gone, a further boundary of where I left off and the rest of the universe began was gone as well. It’s a state that seems to refresh the mind and body. If thoughts run too fast at first, for the above meditation, perhaps due to some involuntary physiological reactions from life, even for someone who is patient, than it is best to first just let any and all thoughts pass by, as in a parade, without latching on to them in any way.

Time Magazine came out with an article in which Buddhist monks were measured in meditation and certain brain areas to do with identification of the self and the body’s boundaries began to show much lower activity, and of course this was likely an expected neurological effect (the pure awareness) of removing all one’s thoughts. Anyone could surely counter with “that’s God’s method”.

One of my pet theories, although unprovable, was that the universe was made of pure awareness at the most fundamental level, everything being connected to everything, this fundamental level being one and the same with our consciousness or awareness (that which observes thoughts and feelings (figures) that surface on the mind at any given moment from the brain), and so therefore was the same for everyone, being the ground of all existence (and a subject only, never an object), although what they came to observe was very different.

I can’t just claim it, though, or any of my other theories—that would just be arbitrary.

Actually, more an more it seems that consciousness needs a brain nearby, but even if it didn’t I don’t think it would warrant a link to God.

When something feels right or sounds right or was taught to me as the way, I can’t just assume it.

500 years ago, many the spiritual thought that evil spirits caused physical ills, but it turned out to be viruses and bacteria.

Some of the spiritual of today think that mental ills of serious sins of abuse and all kinds of crimes major and minor are caused by an evil spirit, but it’s becoming clear that things like low serotonin, which is a “traffic cop” of emotions can reduce a person to very primitive behavior.

Perhaps we are a part of the organic world, just as it seems.

So, anyway, anyone could claim X is true and that it is an unknowable supernatural happening. It is a tendency of people to do this throughout history—from the sun God to the invisible God in Heaven. It could be that the ultimate humility is to realize that we are “merely” electrochemical beings.

Science at least tries to base its belief on an observable chain of events such as the fossil record, DNA blueprints, and such, and experiments.

[N0B0DY]

A few years back I endeavored to prove the opposite of what was normally endeavored by atheists and theists. Instead of trying to prove the existence and non-existence of God, I tried to prove the non-existence of the universe to lessen the friction between the religious and scientific communities.

A few caught the gist, a few didn't, but the more we looked into the religious texts and scientific theories, the more similarities kept popping up that made people go hmmm. Like the one god and the one universe; the many gods and the many forces and phenomena of nature; Akhenaten's spiritual-light creator and SLAC's physical-light creator; all knowledge, power and presence being contained within the universe and god.

Pretty much anything attributed to god can be attributed to the universe, to the extent that preachers are teaching science and scientists are bearing witness to the power of god. What's the difference? The forever mysterious universe is the forever mysterious god.

Perhaps the supernatural god is really the subnatural workings of the universe, and we can all be happy campers knowing that we really don't know much about anything. As the saying goes, "Ignorance is bliss," because seeking too much knowledge too fast can give you a mighty headache.

[dipayankar]

Science is based on logic and solid facts whereas Religion is purely fictional..

[N0B0DY]

I think it's interpretational in the sense that both communities are studying the same circumstantial evidence, but drawing different conclusions as to the scope of the causes. I wouldn't say that it is all that illogical to conclude that a creator is required for the creation of complex systems, much like a creator is required for the creation of a complex computer system. It has been proven that even bacteria are extremely complex and remarkably intelligent.

I think it depends on the religion as well, as some religious texts depict all individuals as existing within god and god within all individuals. The same can be said to apply to the universe. If my religion is based on god being the universe and my church is the whole world, without changing anything whatsoever with respect to the universe, then even atheists would have no choice but to be my fellow churchgoers.

Scientists are brutally honest though, I'll give you that. They are concerned with in-the-box effects and will be the first to admit it, never claiming to know the absolute truth, only what is generally accepted as adequate explanations for certain phenomena. Yet, for me, when out-the-box causes are introduced it often sheds new philosophical light on both religious and scientific interpretations that render preconceived notions obsolete.

[austintorn@aol.com]

This is a tired old question because many ignore it after paying full attention to it in a previous incarnation, but I have to ask it: How is it that a zillion times more complexity of design named God didn't need creating when we demand this for much lesser things?

[dipayankar]

And never ever in the evolution of the Universe did any circumstance need the existance of God. Hence probably God can never be proven logically....

This is a tired old question because many ignore it after paying full attention to it in a previous incarnation, but I have to ask it: How is it that a zillion times more complexity of design named God didn't need creating when we demand this for much lesser things?