BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable, Miracle establishes the existence of Unimaginable God
dattaswami
post Apr 30, 2011, 06:06 PM
Post #1


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 510
Joined: Mar 09, 2006
Member No.: 4946



Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable
Miracle establishes the existence of Unimaginable God

In no book of science, I have found a chapter dedicated to denial of existence of God


The miracle establishes the existence of unimaginable entity with the help of imaginable items. Once the unimaginable entity is practically established, the saying of the unimaginable entity becomes valid till you disprove the unimaginable event. In future, you may disprove it or you may not disprove it at all. I cannot depend on the first possibility only to disbelieve the present status of the issue. You might have shown some petty un-imaginable events as imaginable. That does not mean that you will show the mega unimaginable event also as imaginable.

An ignorant man thinks that he cannot touch the roof by high jump. He is ignorant of the fact that anyone can touch the roof by the long practice of high jump. You may exploit his ignorance and touch the roof by long practice. The ignorant man thought this as really impossible. Now, he is surprised at this and will believe that one day or other, you will touch the sky also. He is also ignorant that the sky can never be touched. But, you cannot fool a wise man, who knows that the roof can be touched by long practice and the sky can never be touched by any amount of practice. There was one day, when the man did not know that a ring can be prepared from gold. In course of time, the ring was generated from gold. This does not mean that in future on some day, the man will achieve the power of generating the gold from energy.


A true scientist is always humble, understands all these aspects and therefore, keeps silent about God. In no book of science, I have found a chapter dedicated to denial of existence of God. Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable. Even Shankara said that the best expression about God is only silence. Only ignorant and egoistic scientists with little knowledge of science become atheists, always trying to disprove the miracles and thereby, try to disprove the existence of unimaginable God. A true scientist and a true philosopher are one and the same keeping silent about the unimaginable God and accept the existence of unimaginable events (miracles) performed by the devotees and human incarnations. Once you accept the existence of unimaginable God and the existence of unimaginable events, you have to accept the validity of the scripture spoken by the unimaginable God. The scripture says that the unimaginable God created energy in unimaginable way and the entire world is manifested from the energy in imaginable way.

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
aurelius89
post Aug 06, 2011, 10:28 AM
Post #2


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Aug 06, 2011
Member No.: 33497



QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *

Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable
Miracle establishes the existence of Unimaginable God

In no book of science, I have found a chapter dedicated to denial of existence of God


The miracle establishes the existence of unimaginable entity with the help of imaginable items. Once the unimaginable entity is practically established, the saying of the unimaginable entity becomes valid till you disprove the unimaginable event. In future, you may disprove it or you may not disprove it at all. I cannot depend on the first possibility only to disbelieve the present status of the issue. You might have shown some petty un-imaginable events as imaginable. That does not mean that you will show the mega unimaginable event also as imaginable.


A miracle is simply an event without a scientifically known cause. Simply because we cannot explain it now, does not mean that we will not in future with greater knowledge. If god's got some mega unimaginable stuff up his sleeves, looks like he's gonna wait til the end of time to use it (and I use the phrase "end of time" in an astronomical sense, not a biblical one), cuz you and I aren't gonna be seeing it.

QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *
An ignorant man thinks that he cannot touch the roof by high jump. He is ignorant of the fact that anyone can touch the roof by the long practice of high jump. You may exploit his ignorance and touch the roof by long practice. The ignorant man thought this as really impossible. Now, he is surprised at this and will believe that one day or other, you will touch the sky also. He is also ignorant that the sky can never be touched. But, you cannot fool a wise man, who knows that the roof can be touched by long practice and the sky can never be touched by any amount of practice. There was one day, when the man did not know that a ring can be prepared from gold. In course of time, the ring was generated from gold. This does not mean that in future on some day, the man will achieve the power of generating the gold from energy.


You go on to essentially say that a fool thinks all things will eventually be explained, by comparing the ability to explain a miracle to the ability to touch the sky. However there is no historically documented event which cannot be dismissed either through a rational explanation of a religious interpretation of an event (the Nile turning red (a species of algae discovered to live in the Nile River that, when undergoing a bloom, makes the water appear red)). And biblical literalists are always keen to forget that stories passed by word of mouth are given to exaggerations, or even to mistakes in translation. Especially over extended periods of time, and the copying of copies of copies (ad infinitum) of religious texts. A phenomenon well known to those who played "Chinese Whispers" at school.


QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *
A true scientist is always humble, understands all these aspects and therefore, keeps silent about God. In no book of science, I have found a chapter dedicated to denial of existence of God. Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable. Even Shankara said that the best expression about God is only silence.


I'm sure many will agree that it is a waste of a scientists time, in his role as a scientist, to argue against the existence of something that cannot be observed and seems to shy away from causing any wholly unexplainable events that defy the laws of physics (rain falling upwards would certainly be amusing). It'd be an utter waste of time. Besides, many people don't consider the existence of god a scientific question - their skepticism is aimed at religious assertions about the beginning of the universe, and the ascent of homo sapiens as created beings. Science doesn't mention god because science is to do with testing hypotheses against an observable reality. Deities, apparently not being observable or testable, are not considered scientific concepts, and so are omitted from scientific textbooks. Phenomenon such as evolution, with the workings of it's mechanism and our understanding of how those mechanisms caused incremental changes over eons, is considered scientific.

QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *
Only ignorant and egoistic scientists with little knowledge of science become atheists, always trying to disprove the miracles and thereby, try to disprove the existence of unimaginable God. A true scientist and a true philosopher are one and the same keeping silent about the unimaginable God and accept the existence of unimaginable events (miracles) performed by the devotees and human incarnations.


Technically speaking, the belief in a god is not relevant to one being a scientist, since the question of the existence of deities is not a part of the scientific paradigm, and instead a philosophical one. Epistemology tells us that science, a system of knowledge based on empiricism (experience gained from formulating hypotheses based on observations and testing those hypotheses against reality) cannot accept that events can happen outside the laws of nature. Perhaps outside the laws as we know them, but no giant hand has ever scooped a drowning child from the water.

QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *
Once you accept the existence of unimaginable God and the existence of unimaginable events, you have to accept the validity of the scripture spoken by the unimaginable God.


Which scriptures? Hindi? Islam? Christianity? Judaism? Zoroastrianism? Roman Paganism? Gaulish Paganism? Every culture has a different holy book telling them how to live their lives, often in vastly different ways. So which scripture is it that you are referring to that is the absolute, unquestionable truth? Did god come down and hand the specific volume of XXXX book to you of XXXX's translation and say that it was the book he designated as being true?

QUOTE(dattaswami @ May 01, 2011, 12:36 PM) *
The scripture says that the unimaginable God created energy in unimaginable way and the entire world is manifested from the energy in imaginable way.

Universal Spirituality for World Peace


Umm, I'm pretty sure that the world is made up of atoms, made up of protons, electrons and neutrons, and they're made up of neutrinos, quarks, leptons, etc. Sounds pretty imaginable to me. Even if those sub-sub-atomic particles are made up of strings.

You employ an a priori ontological argument to posit the existence of a deity based on the promise of a 'miracle' that, you assert via implication, couldn't be scientifically explained even if humans were to possess all the scientific knowledge that is was possible to ever possess, even as posthuman beings. You go on to say that any scientist that is an atheist is ignorant, despite that the existence of a deity is not observable or testable and therefore not a scientific or anti-scientific position.

Furthermore you declare that a 'true scientist' keeps silent about events which very well could be explained, simply to maintain the beliefs of individuals in phenomena, the nature of which those individuals might attribute to a deity, despite being plausibly explained scientifically. If the events are not divine, what's the harm in pointing out just how natural of an occurrence they are?

Purely for posterity, you might want to work on your argument a little.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Aug 09, 2011, 06:47 AM
Post #3


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



Eloquent rebuttal aurelius89!

Until God is observed (and by this I mean an intelligent being that helps orchestrate the universe(s)), God will not be a scientific concept. This does not necessarily mean that God will never be observed as I feel we are still in our infancy in terms of our scientific investigations of the universe. However, until that time comes (if ever it does come), science will shy away from any 'dieties' that cannot be verified.

With that said, I am struck by the informational dynamic present at all levels of physical reality- from the microscopic to the macroscopic. We are still left with the conundrum of how all this information came about. Where did it ultimately come from? The informational structure of reality may be more fundamental than that of matter and energy. The universe appears to be a massive informational processor spread throughout time and space. And to my mind at least, information may be self-referential to some degree. Does the information writ large 'know' what it's doing? Science has indeed verified the informational structure of reality and might go so far as to say that the universe as a whole is processing this information through 'evolution' or some other dynamic involving matter and energy.

In purely theoretical terms, if information is present at the beginning and throughout the entirety of the universe, it seems that such information could be understood in all of its complexity. Knowledge of how information 'works' makes understanding possible. If we (or any other being for that matter) truly understood all of the intricate dynamics of information, we would become omniscient. Science is not close to this level of understanding at its present state and may never reach it, but no other being (or collective intelligence) in the universe may by privy to such understanding either.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
antonyanil
post Aug 09, 2011, 07:37 AM
Post #4


Aspiring
**

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



QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Aug 09, 2011, 06:47 AM) *

Eloquent rebuttal aurelius89!

Until God is observed (and by this I mean an intelligent being that helps orchestrate the universe(s)), God will not be a scientific concept. This does not necessarily mean that God will never be observed as I feel we are still in our infancy in terms of our scientific investigations of the universe. However, until that time comes (if ever it does come), science will shy away from any 'dieties' that cannot be verified.

With that said, I am struck by the informational dynamic present at all levels of physical reality- from the microscopic to the macroscopic. We are still left with the conundrum of how all this information came about. Where did it ultimately come from? The informational structure of reality may be more fundamental than that of matter and energy. The universe appears to be a massive informational processor spread throughout time and space. And to my mind at least, information may be self-referential to some degree. Does the information writ large 'know' what it's doing? Science has indeed verified the informational structure of reality and might go so far as to say that the universe as a whole is processing this information through 'evolution' or some other dynamic involving matter and energy.

In purely theoretical terms, if information is present at the beginning and throughout the entirety of the universe, it seems that such information could be understood in all of its complexity. Knowledge of how information 'works' makes understanding possible. If we (or any other being for that matter) truly understood all of the intricate dynamics of information, we would become omniscient. Science is not close to this level of understanding at its present state and may never reach it, but no other being (or collective intelligence) in the universe may by privy to such understanding either.


God cannot be observed. God do not have any spatial dimensions! When God is unimaginable how can you observe Him. However God adopted a methodology by which you can experience Him, that is He comes down in human form then you can experience Him through that human form known as Human incarnation.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Aug 09, 2011, 09:33 AM
Post #5


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



QUOTE(antonyanil @ Aug 09, 2011, 11:37 AM) *

QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Aug 09, 2011, 06:47 AM) *

Eloquent rebuttal aurelius89!

Until God is observed (and by this I mean an intelligent being that helps orchestrate the universe(s)), God will not be a scientific concept. This does not necessarily mean that God will never be observed as I feel we are still in our infancy in terms of our scientific investigations of the universe. However, until that time comes (if ever it does come), science will shy away from any 'dieties' that cannot be verified.

With that said, I am struck by the informational dynamic present at all levels of physical reality- from the microscopic to the macroscopic. We are still left with the conundrum of how all this information came about. Where did it ultimately come from? The informational structure of reality may be more fundamental than that of matter and energy. The universe appears to be a massive informational processor spread throughout time and space. And to my mind at least, information may be self-referential to some degree. Does the information writ large 'know' what it's doing? Science has indeed verified the informational structure of reality and might go so far as to say that the universe as a whole is processing this information through 'evolution' or some other dynamic involving matter and energy.

In purely theoretical terms, if information is present at the beginning and throughout the entirety of the universe, it seems that such information could be understood in all of its complexity. Knowledge of how information 'works' makes understanding possible. If we (or any other being for that matter) truly understood all of the intricate dynamics of information, we would become omniscient. Science is not close to this level of understanding at its present state and may never reach it, but no other being (or collective intelligence) in the universe may by privy to such understanding either.


God cannot be observed. God do not have any spatial dimensions! When God is unimaginable how can you observe Him. However God adopted a methodology by which you can experience Him, that is He comes down in human form then you can experience Him through that human form known as Human incarnation.


This gets to the problem of many of the arguments for the existence of God, namely, that if God cannot be observed, then how do we know that such an entity exists. I could say that a blue gorilla exists in some trancendental plane and never have to verify his existence because he 'transcends space and time'. But simply because my blue gorilla 'cannot be observed' by no means is sufficient grounds for asserting that he does in fact exist.

I am familiar with arguments for the existence of God based on some sort of 'internal experience', but the argument seems weak at best. All kinds of people with schizophrenia and paranoid delusions have experiences of entities that do not exist in reality. I am constantly amazed at the range of beliefs that people will hold without any observable proof that can be scientifically verified. Personal internal experiences are too vague and misleading of a mental phenomenon to be adequate proofs for the existence of God.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
antonyanil
post Aug 09, 2011, 05:59 PM
Post #6


Aspiring
**

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



QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Aug 09, 2011, 09:33 AM) *

QUOTE(antonyanil @ Aug 09, 2011, 11:37 AM) *

QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Aug 09, 2011, 06:47 AM) *

Eloquent rebuttal aurelius89!

Until God is observed (and by this I mean an intelligent being that helps orchestrate the universe(s)), God will not be a scientific concept. This does not necessarily mean that God will never be observed as I feel we are still in our infancy in terms of our scientific investigations of the universe. However, until that time comes (if ever it does come), science will shy away from any 'dieties' that cannot be verified.

With that said, I am struck by the informational dynamic present at all levels of physical reality- from the microscopic to the macroscopic. We are still left with the conundrum of how all this information came about. Where did it ultimately come from? The informational structure of reality may be more fundamental than that of matter and energy. The universe appears to be a massive informational processor spread throughout time and space. And to my mind at least, information may be self-referential to some degree. Does the information writ large 'know' what it's doing? Science has indeed verified the informational structure of reality and might go so far as to say that the universe as a whole is processing this information through 'evolution' or some other dynamic involving matter and energy.

In purely theoretical terms, if information is present at the beginning and throughout the entirety of the universe, it seems that such information could be understood in all of its complexity. Knowledge of how information 'works' makes understanding possible. If we (or any other being for that matter) truly understood all of the intricate dynamics of information, we would become omniscient. Science is not close to this level of understanding at its present state and may never reach it, but no other being (or collective intelligence) in the universe may by privy to such understanding either.


God cannot be observed. God do not have any spatial dimensions! When God is unimaginable how can you observe Him. However God adopted a methodology by which you can experience Him, that is He comes down in human form then you can experience Him through that human form known as Human incarnation.


This gets to the problem of many of the arguments for the existence of God, namely, that if God cannot be observed, then how do we know that such an entity exists. I could say that a blue gorilla exists in some trancendental plane and never have to verify his existence because he 'transcends space and time'. But simply because my blue gorilla 'cannot be observed' by no means is sufficient grounds for asserting that he does in fact exist.

I am familiar with arguments for the existence of God based on some sort of 'internal experience', but the argument seems weak at best. All kinds of people with schizophrenia and paranoid delusions have experiences of entities that do not exist in reality. I am constantly amazed at the range of beliefs that people will hold without any observable proof that can be scientifically verified. Personal internal experiences are too vague and misleading of a mental phenomenon to be adequate proofs for the existence of God.

The practical proof for existence of God

God Himself comes down in human form to give practical proof for the existence of the unimaginable God through the exhibition of unimaginable events called as miracles. Jesus told that He has come down to fulfill, what is said in the scripture. Krishna also said that He came down since there is a necessity and He said that He will come down whenever there is a necessity. The necessity is the requirement of practical proof for the theoretical explanation of God given in the scripture. Then only, the validity comes. Science is valid since every concept in the book is experimentally proved in the laboratory. A student of science always attends the practical class in the laboratory after the theory class. The doubt about the existence of God is quite natural because there is every chance to doubt about the existence of anything, which is not understood even by intensive imagination. The human incarnation declares the existence of God after giving the practical proof. In fact, people experience the unimaginable events in their life, which indicate God. But, people do not care to analyze and remember God thereby.

Even if we dispose all the miracles as magic show without careful analysis, the existence of unimaginable boundary of universe, which can be realized by anybody at anytime, is a clear proof for existence of unimaginable entity called as God.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GodConsciousness
post Aug 10, 2011, 05:47 AM
Post #7


Demi-God
*****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 841
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
Member No.: 5683



My personal thoughts are that we are all incarnations of God or the expansive universe itself.

Science attempts to learn and master the code of the universe. Yet, the code goes deep and we may eventually hack our way through and find the supreme programmer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Aug 10, 2011, 07:42 AM
Post #8


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



Not likely. The hacker sits in a different room than the programmer. The hacker would necessarily have to leave the room (reality) to enter the programmers room (reality) and become the programmer.

Otherwise the hacker can only imagine what is going on in the other room. Different levels of cognitive awareness are bound by levels of reality. Instruments of man are built in the physical level of reality while the mind lives in all levels of reality. There is no limit to the human Soul as an instrument, but all objects built at levels of reality that have properties supported by physical laws have limitations.
User is online!Profile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
antonyanil
post Aug 10, 2011, 08:12 AM
Post #9


Aspiring
**

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



QUOTE(GodConsciousness @ Aug 10, 2011, 05:47 AM) *

My personal thoughts are that we are all incarnations of God or the expansive universe itself.

Science attempts to learn and master the code of the universe. Yet, the code goes deep and we may eventually hack our way through and find the supreme programmer.

According to science, inert energy is basic material of this universe, which creates, maintains and finally dissolves entire creation and is the God of science. The design of the world doesn’t require the need of awareness because a long duration of time has set up the design of world perfectly by the theory of probability. Scientists do not accept the necessity of an intellectual agent to design this wonderful world as philosophers imagine in Vedanta (Brahmasutras). If this is the end of the story, science could have easily disposed the proposal of Vedanta and the scriptures can be easily concluded as poetic imaginations of certain poets. It can be easily concluded that certain people have created this poetry to exploit the society in the name of God. Anyone can easily believe science and by this time the world should have been filled with atheists only and today, the minority should be theists.

But surprisingly the majority is theists and minority is only atheists. The atheists say that since majority is uneducated, theism exists due to possibility of easy exploitation of uneducated people. But even educated people show majority of theists only all over the world. What is the reason for this? The reason for this is that the unimaginable God is showing miracles in the lives of several people to establish the existence of unimaginable God.

Not only this, the unimaginable God is exhibiting unimaginable miracles through several devotees and also demons widely. Not only this, God is coming in human form and is offering explanation of the miracles and concept of God. Genuine miracles are many in the world and the minority of atheists is unable to dispose these miracles as magic. You may write the correct answer through copying in the examination. Some body might have also written the same correct answer without copying in the examination. Since the answer is one and same, can you say that the other person who has written the correct answer also copied necessarily? The product may be same but the methods of production vary. Sodium chloride can be produced in several ways. You have produced it in one way. I have produced it in another way. The end product is the same sodium chloride. You cannot say that I have also produced in your way only.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
antonyanil
post Aug 10, 2011, 08:16 AM
Post #10


Aspiring
**

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



QUOTE(Joesus @ Aug 10, 2011, 07:42 AM) *

Not likely. The hacker sits in a different room than the programmer. The hacker would necessarily have to leave the room (reality) to enter the programmers room (reality) and become the programmer.

Otherwise the hacker can only imagine what is going on in the other room. Different levels of cognitive awareness are bound by levels of reality. Instruments of man are built in the physical level of reality while the mind lives in all levels of reality. There is no limit to the human Soul as an instrument, but all objects built at levels of reality that have properties supported by physical laws have limitations.

If both energy and work are different from each other, for the generation of every quantum of work there should not be corresponding disappearance of one quantum of energy in the body. For example, if one calorie of energy disappears, you have walked one mile. If you have walked two miles, two calories of energy disappear correspondingly. This means, only the energy is converted into work and not any other item like the instrument used in the work. By walking two miles the instrumental legs have not disappeared partially by two quanta like two calories. Hence, the instrument is not involved in the conversion in to work. Therefore, work is only another form of energy.

The work becomes different from energy due to the association of instrument. The work differs from notable energy and notable instrument by being unnoticed.The above two versions are contradicting to each other. One says that energy and work are one and the same. The other says that energy and work are different. The conclusion of this contradiction must be given. We say that the work is basically the energy but it becomes different due to the association of instrument. The notable energy becomes un-notable work due to the association of instrument and hence the work can be neither identified as the notable work or notable instrument. The process of walking is work. It is different form the instrumental legs and also the causal energy. We can notice only energy and legs and the work, which is different from these two, cannot be noticed. The inert heat energy can be noticed by thermometer directly and the instrumental legs are directly noticed by the two eyes. But the process of walking as invisible work cannot be noticed directly.



Since the work is un-notable, it is not taken as entity, but the work exists. Since the work is not noticed, being different from the notable energy and notable instrument, we say that the work is not the entity. The entity is always easily noted. However, this does not mean that we say that the work is non-existent. The work certainly exists, though it is not treated as notable entity.The awareness certainly exists as invisible form of inert energy. Here the instrument is nervous system.The awareness is the work and the entity is the inert energy produced by the oxidation of food. The nervous system is the instrument. From the above analysis, the awareness exists, but being un-noticed, it is of secondary importance and does not have the primary importance of entity. Awareness as work is quite different from the inert energy as well as the nervous system. It is the invisible form of inert energy due to proportionate conversion and certainly is having existence.

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: 22nd October 2014 - 06:14 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © 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