what we can do ?

Views: 2444

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

With all due respect Dr. Clark, in its contributions to Genesis, the Yahwist (J) Source, writing around 950 BCE, consistently imagined a god capable of visiting earth in human form.

Yes, indeed. Moses saw God's backside, Adam and Eve heard his footsteps, and others heard his voice, but as time went on, God was less and less manifest in any physical way. The physical Christ is most always distinguished from Christ as God. This helps to explain such things as Christ saying that no man knows the time when the world will end: it was his human character that failed to know. A similar explanation is offered for his saying that none is good but God.

RE: "as time went on, God was less and less manifest in any physical way."

The Hidden Face of God, by Richard Elliot Friedman, addresses this phenomena.

Shit? Then there's a god. What god, that's to be determined. 

I think that if science proved "God's" existence, then really we didn't discover a God at all. Science can only prove things that have natural explanations and if something "like" a God were to be discovered it would humble that being down to a mere force of nature, etc.

That's exactly right! Science cannot discover God. In the Hindu tradition, God is never an object of its own knowledge. Alan Watts uses the analogy that you cannot bite your own teeth or touch the tip of your finger with the tip of your finger. It's described as being an ultimate state of consciousness in which there's no room for an observer to observe anything, which is how science works from the perspective of any scientist.

"Scientists are stumped at 'why'... one of these days one of them will have this flash and realise all is consciousness ... the flash will happen when the mind is exhausted." - Ramesh Balsekar

 

So, I always lean towards what Sam Harris always espouses which is ignosticism which aims to define God before questions like this one are asked, because in eastern religion, this question would not make any sense.

Quite right. Only a material manifestation could be discovered by science and that would leave as inaccessible the spiritual nature.

So God would exist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to worship him. My knee(s) will not be bowing.

If there were such a being we wouldn't recognize it.  It would have to have the power it takes to create a universe 13.7 billion light years across. Now how would we relate to that? 

We exist on a rather small planet with a thin atmosphere orbiting a smallish medium sized star which is one of over 100 billion stars in our galaxy which is one of billions of galaxies, many bigger than ours.  What are the chances of there being another planet such as ours?  Millions, if not billions.

In this little star system we live in we have a probe that has been moving at over 38,000 miles an hour since 1977 and has not yet made it all the way into interstellar space.  In all that time it has traveled a little over 1/2 a light DAY and when it does enter interstellar space it will travel for over 1,000 years before it passes another star at a distance of 1/2 a light year.

What would science discover that would point to the existence of a god or supreme being?

Science would solve M-Theory at the same time as they'd discover that the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-theory is accessible through a phenomenon in consciousness that everyone has the potential for. We'd discover that all God was was a concept taken from an experience of what M-Theory calls "11-dimensional hyperspace," and that it occurs as a colossal transformation of consciousness. That which Richard M. Bucke called "Cosmic Consciousness," what Romain Rolland called the "oceanic feeling" was this effect in consciousness that has had many names throughout history and religion, such as the Shekhina in Judaism, the Beatific vision in Christianity, samadhi or Brahman in Hinduism, satori in Zen Buddhism, "ego death" among entheogenic enthusiasts, etc. We'd up-date the Perennial Philosophy to reflect that.

So, God, in this model wouldn't have a form at all or would be a being of any sort. It would be a kind of pure potentiality which contains all possibilities that interconnects us all. And while Brahman may be the experience of it that doesn't require a concept, because it's an experience within consciousness, M-Theory is how we intellectually think about it when it form it into a concept, but both the 11-dimensional hyperspace of M-Theory and the Brahman of Hinduism point to the very same thing.

Of course science tests all its conclusions so there would have to be tests for omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence to make sure that science had discovered the one true God and not some powerful, clever, and apparently ubiquitous demigod. Such tests would seem to be impossible. The candidate beings might be powerful, but could you ever be sure that any one of them was omnipotent? Similarly for omniscience—you could give him or her a thorough testing and still not be sure that he or she knew everything. 

RSS

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service