BrainMeta'   Connectomics'  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Why the science is silent about the unimaginable, Only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable
antonyanil
post Nov 04, 2011, 11:01 PM
Post #1


Aspiring
**

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 50
Joined: Aug 06, 2011
Member No.: 33498



Why the science is silent about the unimaginable
Only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable


The silence of science about the unimaginable God is mis-understood as the negation. Similarly, the silence of Buddha about the unimaginable God was mistaken as negation of God. By this, both Buddha and science were treated as the sources of atheism. Silence does not mean negation of unimaginable entity. Even the authority of theism, the Veda, says that the best expression of God is silence. Even Shankara clearly stated that the absolute God (Parabrahman) is always expressed by silence. Shankara debated with the followers of Buddha only on this point and proved that silence is not the indication of negation of God. Silence is only the acceptance of existence of unimaginable God.

You must say that the unimaginable God exists. You are authorized only up to this single point. The Veda says that only the existence of God is acceptable and explicable (Astityeva…). Regarding the further information of God, silence is to be adopted. The acceptance of existence of unimaginable God is based on the exhibition of unimaginable events called as miracles. The multiplicity in the unimaginable events is not the multiplicity in the unimaginable item. There is only one unimaginable item called as God. He is establishing the existence of the unimaginable item on several occasions using several imaginable materials. Therefore, the multiplicity is only in the occasions and in the imaginable materials and it is not in the final conclusion, which is the existence of single unimaginable item. Already, we have established that there cannot be multiplicity in the unimaginable item.
www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Nov 05, 2011, 03:43 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



World peace is certainly to be strived for, but there are no supernatural beings. We will have to do it ourselves.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 06, 2011, 04:04 AM
Post #3


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



I really hope human kind stops relying on gods to solve our problems. 2000 years of preys to christ didnīt make people healthier, however 200 years of science development have made miracles on that. Even if Science doesnīt negate god, till this very moment Science has told us god is not needed, and by saying that puts in evidence any religion that wants its belivers to follow certain rules or tradition, sometimes against common sense. We canīt expect religions and some religious people to not to feel under attack.

Although I understand that some Philosophies or religions can turn "some" wild or lost people into peaceful loving beings I think the problem is they believe on the utopy of being capable of turning the whole human kind into that, sometimes using physical or psychological coercion (or at least they expect to "kindly" get rid of the not so convinced). Because that is not posible religions and philosophies keep failing, sometimes even doing more harm than good.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PANCHO
post Nov 06, 2011, 04:58 AM
Post #4


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 20, 2011
Member No.: 33686



I think religions have good and bad things. They make people feel better but at the same time they lock them up and make them think the gods will save them. So instead of helping themselves, they rely on God to solve their problems, which can end up not solving anything. It locks their understanding of things.

It is funny because the same thing also happens with science. People believe that science one day will solve their spiritual problems (and all the problems of humanity). People rely on science for many things and they even now start to view their bodies\lives as a scientific material object. So in a way, science has also good and bad things.

Putting your hopes in one single basket may not be a good life investment.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 06, 2011, 08:57 AM
Post #5


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 06, 2011, 01:58 PM) *

It is funny because the same thing also happens with science. People believe that science one day will solve their spiritual problems (and all the problems of humanity). People rely on science for many things and they even now start to view their bodies\lives as a scientific material object. So in a way, science has also good and bad things.

Well for sure you will agree with me science is already showing some results on that. Although Iīm not going in to whether the biological/materialistic point of view is the only one or not, It is pretty obvious that an important part of who we are is in our bodies, genes and brain. The more we know about it the better, and if there is any true to find about spirituality or soul we will find it. People is not stupid they rely in science because it works and because it please them in a hedonistic way.


QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 06, 2011, 01:58 PM) *

Putting your hopes in one single basket may not be a good life investment.

Thatīs more of a personal style choice, but its my believe that if such a basket as after life do exist your ticket is already in, you actually donīt need to do anything special whatever some religions could say. Actually thatīs exactly how i feel it. Why should we care so much about after life? We live here and now and having an Ego and a consciousness is a gift we must tresure here and now, not in the future for an hypothetical after life. If something threats my ego i will try to protect it with whatever tools i have around.
On the other side if only the science basket is real and in future it gives you the solution of some of your problems, well thatīs a train you can loose if you decide not to take it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PANCHO
post Nov 06, 2011, 09:13 AM
Post #6


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 20, 2011
Member No.: 33686



QUOTE(Jakare @ Nov 06, 2011, 08:57 AM) *

Well for sure you will agree with me science is already showing some results on that. Although Iīm not going in to whether the biological/materialistic point of view is the only one or not, It is pretty obvious that an important part of who we are is in our bodies, genes and brain. The more we know about it the better, and if there is any true to find about spirituality or soul we will find it. People is not stupid they rely in science because it works and because it please them in a hedonistic way.


Science is good but limited. Are all problems scientific problems or do you chose to make them scientific? There are infinite nonscientific problems depending on how you look at things. Using the wrong tool may not work. Using science may not work. The problem may not have anything to do with science. Science cannot substitute philosophy because it is a subset of it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 06, 2011, 09:36 AM
Post #7


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 06, 2011, 06:13 PM) *

Science is good but limited.

Those limits still remain to be reached, lets see how far we can get.

QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 06, 2011, 06:13 PM) *

Are all problems scientific problems or do you chose to make them scientific? There are infinite nonscientific problems depending on how you look at things. Using the wrong tool may not work. Using science may not work. The problem may not have anything to do with science. Science cannot substitute philosophy because it is a subset of it.

All problems have a scientific part at very least. Choices are choices, they donīt change the subject or the issue, they change how you perceive them. Whatīs the difference between several ways of perceive reality? That some will be more useful than others. Useful for what? that depends on your purpose. Different purposes will prefer different perceptions so maybe the right question would be what is your purpose before choosing the point of view from which you are going to perceive something. But then again, who do so? We tend to attach to unconsciouss purposes and that blurs reality.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PANCHO
post Nov 06, 2011, 09:53 AM
Post #8


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 20, 2011
Member No.: 33686



QUOTE(Jakare @ Nov 06, 2011, 09:36 AM) *

All problems have a scientific part at very least. Choices are choices, they donīt change the subject or the issue, they change how you perceive them. Whatīs the difference between several ways of perceive reality? That some will be more useful than others. Useful for what? that depends on your purpose. Different purposes will prefer different perceptions so maybe the right question would be what is your purpose before choosing the point of view from which you are going to perceive something. But then again, who do so? We tend to attach to unconsciouss purposes and that blurs reality.


Not all problems have a scientific point of view. People have lived for millennia? and science is new, so there. Science is more of cultural phenomena than a natural way of thinking. You can chose to make the problem scientific, sure, but that is a choice like you said. But that choice comes from a philosophical one, the one that made you chose science, the one that sits on top, telling what you like and what you don't like. For example, pondering about this has nothing to do with science.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 06, 2011, 10:10 AM
Post #9


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 06, 2011, 06:53 PM) *

Not all problems have a scientific point of view. People have lived for millennia? and science is new, so there. Science is more of cultural phenomena than a natural way of thinking. You can chose to make the problem scientific, sure, but that is a choice like you said. But that choice comes from a philosophical one, the one that made you chose science, the one that sits on top, telling what you like and what you don't like. For example, pondering about this has nothing to do with science.


Science is not new, it was born with a different name from philosophy in Greece B.C., and how did the egipcians build the piramids? how did the Mayas its famous calendar? With science. So is not so new, what is new is its general use to solve common problems. And honestly, people havenīt "lived" for millennia, they have just struggled for "survival", is different.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PANCHO
post Nov 07, 2011, 05:14 AM
Post #10


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 20, 2011
Member No.: 33686



QUOTE(Jakare @ Nov 06, 2011, 10:10 AM) *

Science is not new, it was born with a different name from philosophy in Greece B.C., and how did the egipcians build the piramids? how did the Mayas its famous calendar? With science. So is not so new, what is new is its general use to solve common problems. And honestly, people havenīt "lived" for millennia, they have just struggled for "survival", is different.


Does a bird making a nest use science? I thought that scientific thinking started with Galileo (historically). Previous to that not sure. Engineering achievements could not be considered scientific achievements thougfh I can see the necessity of knowledge, which may not be scientific.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 07, 2011, 10:24 AM
Post #11


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(PANCHO @ Nov 07, 2011, 02:14 PM) *



Does a bird making a nest use science?

Good point but a bird doesnīt need to study to do so.

Thales of Miletus is thought to be the first scientist because he tried to explain the world without invoking gods. This train of thought has prove itself most useful.

Science just try to escape from superstition which is the source of irrational fear, violence and most evil things happening in the world.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
PANCHO
post Nov 07, 2011, 10:59 AM
Post #12


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 141
Joined: Oct 20, 2011
Member No.: 33686



QUOTE(Jakare @ Nov 07, 2011, 10:24 AM) *

Science just try to escape from superstition which is the source of irrational fear, violence and most evil things happening in the world.


I agree that science tries to be objective. Objectivity has its limitations and weaknesses. Can one be objective about the subjective? Are wishes subjective? Are feelings subjective?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Quantum Sunlight
post Nov 07, 2011, 03:22 PM
Post #13


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
Member No.: 33707



Jakare, as you are probably aware, string theory indicates there are either 10 or 12 dimensions to our "reality"... yet we only exist in and are capable of interacting with 4 of those dimensions (x,y,z and spacetime).

My question is... is it likely that science will be able to conclusively prove that 'God' does not exist, when there are, at minimum, 6 dimensions of reality, layers of the glass onion, above our heads that we are incapable of seeing, interacting with, or even speculating on the contents or purpose of?

(I usually ask this question of folks who believe we are *this close* to discovering the "theory of everything" :-)

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Quantum Sunlight
post Nov 07, 2011, 03:30 PM
Post #14


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
Member No.: 33707



QUOTE(Rick @ Nov 05, 2011, 04:43 PM) *

World peace is certainly to be strived for, but there are no supernatural beings. We will have to do it ourselves.


Hi Rick,

Please see my question to Jakare... I'd like to pose the same query to you as well. :-)

We do not believe in things we do not see...? But what about dimensions above our heads that the almighty science has proven to exist...? We do not see them, but believe they must be there since science brought them to the party, and not our own ancestors?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Jakare
post Nov 08, 2011, 04:57 AM
Post #15


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 589
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Member No.: 32635



QUOTE(Quantum Sunlight @ Nov 08, 2011, 12:22 AM) *

Jakare, as you are probably aware, string theory indicates there are either 10 or 12 dimensions to our "reality"... yet we only exist in and are capable of interacting with 4 of those dimensions (x,y,z and spacetime).

My question is... is it likely that science will be able to conclusively prove that 'God' does not exist, when there are, at minimum, 6 dimensions of reality, layers of the glass onion, above our heads that we are incapable of seeing, interacting with, or even speculating on the contents or purpose of?

(I usually ask this question of folks who believe we are *this close* to discovering the "theory of everything" :-)

Thatīs one thing not widely understood, i donīt understand it well but that extra dimensions donīt work on a macroscopic lever, They only exist on subatomic particle level, so is not like there is hiden corners around our world. Meaning that our universe has the well known 3 macroscopic dimensions plus time and a still unknown number of microscopic dimensions.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Quantum Sunlight
post Nov 08, 2011, 07:51 AM
Post #16


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
Member No.: 33707



Thanks for your reply Jakare... this is a subject I do find truly fascinating so I hope you will indulge me just a bit further in some friendly discussion.

Could we ever really say something happens at the quantum level, but not on our own level of reality? Surely common sense would tell us that this is not so... reality must be like a fractal, each new rung is fundamentally the same as every other repetition of the pattern that came before it. Therefore if something is true on the microscopic level, it must also be true in our "bigger" macroscopic world as well... even if it is counter intuitive or does not mesh easily with our commonly-held worldview.

I don't understand how humans became convinced that we are the apex of evolution and knowledge... everyone seems so certain that we see and understand everything, but this is a truly arrogant assumption, in my own mind...

I went to a fish hatchery recently and I saw thousands and thousands of fish in man-made pools, swimming, playing, mating, whatever the heck fish do in their day-to-day fish lives... my face was just inches from the water but they did not see me and were totally unaware of my presence... because their fish-minds most likely could not even conceive of a world outside of their own watery environment, much less creatures much more highly evolved than themselves inhabiting it...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
KoolK3n
post Nov 08, 2011, 10:06 AM
Post #17


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Aug 20, 2011
From: Minnesota
Member No.: 33523



QUOTE(Quantum Sunlight @ Nov 08, 2011, 09:51 AM) *

I went to a fish hatchery recently and I saw thousands and thousands of fish in man-made pools, swimming, playing, mating, whatever the heck fish do in their day-to-day fish lives... my face was just inches from the water but they did not see me and were totally unaware of my presence... because their fish-minds most likely could not even conceive of a world outside of their own watery environment, much less creatures much more highly evolved than themselves inhabiting it...


Good example! Instead of calling it watery environment, call it Flatland. The fish you used in your example probably live with a two dimensional mentality which may explain their oblivious attitude towards our perception of reality. Who's to say we aren't fish fixed with our flatland thinking? This is where we the forefronts of Quantum mechanics reside.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Quantum Sunlight
post Nov 08, 2011, 12:48 PM
Post #18


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Oct 28, 2011
Member No.: 33707



QUOTE(KoolK3n @ Nov 08, 2011, 11:06 AM) *

QUOTE(Quantum Sunlight @ Nov 08, 2011, 09:51 AM) *

I went to a fish hatchery recently and I saw thousands and thousands of fish in man-made pools, swimming, playing, mating, whatever the heck fish do in their day-to-day fish lives... my face was just inches from the water but they did not see me and were totally unaware of my presence... because their fish-minds most likely could not even conceive of a world outside of their own watery environment, much less creatures much more highly evolved than themselves inhabiting it...


Good example! Instead of calling it watery environment, call it Flatland. The fish you used in your example probably live with a two dimensional mentality which may explain their oblivious attitude towards our perception of reality. Who's to say we aren't fish fixed with our flatland thinking? This is where we the forefronts of Quantum mechanics reside.


Exactly! I read somewhere that a being that exists in more dimensions than we do could observe the entire timeline of our universe, from beginning to end, in the same way that we ourselves look at a map, or a globe...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th August 2017 - 01:28 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright Đ BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog
 · Connectomics · Connectomics  ·  shawn mikula  ·  articles