Can science now say how it could be that God is eternal, if It exists.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think the universe is beyond our ability to understand and so we work with concepts that we can kind of relate to like 'God'. An eternal God we can kind of (but not fully) grasp and it is I think the best we can get at.

Our understanding of the universe has progressed at an exponential rate, especially in the last 10 years. The question of the existence of God, however, is dead in the water and will continue to be so, I'm sure, since there is absolutely no evidence from before the Big Bang to work with--(by design?). For us Truth is God, wherever that leads, whether we like it or not.

Why would any of that make a God real?

***I never said and don't claim that it would make God real. God's existence is still a completely open question. I'm only suggesting that this would make that possible God's possible eternal existence intuitively comprehensible, nothing more.

There is no proof, evidence, verifiable appearances, of a God, etc.

Exactly, for or against. And to be precise, the question isn't whether God exists (involves proving negatives), but rather how the universe came to be. Was it designed/created, or did it just spontaneously happen?

If we take your original post - we would have to also believe every weird thing someone thinks-up is real. A sentient - wish granting - flying - ten legged - pickle - God, for instance.

Re: *** above ^^^

How is my pickle God real, - just because I believe it exists and grants wishes, - using the science and speculation you mention?

Substitute YHVH, Zeus, Demeter, Dagon, etc.

You can't compare science which starts with actual known verifiable facts, - to people's -belief- that something exists, with no proof.

*

The pink unicorn argument again. All those myths and derogatory names don't change the fact that the question remains, creator God vs. No-God--and in either case, It's name, its definition, is Truth.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, but whether God, if It exists, is spiritual or not is not the issue. God exerting influence in the universe is. The only argument for supernatural events is ancient hearsay. Therefore, there's no grist for the scientific mill to grind.



Ours is a 4-D universe,and relativity theory says that time is one of those dimensions. But our universe could be suspended in or otherwise associated with an ether of many/infinite dimensions. Understanding TI is vital to comprehending what's going on in quantum theory and the so-called Quantumland. Again, I recommend Ruth Kastner's book that I mentioned, Understanding Our Unseen Reality.



I think our fully self-aware existence leads inevitably to the question "Why?", more so than how. And as to why, I have an answer--we are here in the pursuit of Truth, where the aspects of Truth are knowledge, justice, love and beauty. The question we're dealing with here certainly involves acquiring knowledge, but there's an element of a beautiful mystery as well.

I appreciate your taking a moment to reply. You already said most of this in your first post, and I don't think we have communicated well at all. There isn't anything really new when you start talking about God, the universe and meaning etc. Most of what you are talking about is ancient, literally thousands of years old stuff that's been discussed continually for ages and ages. I'm not inventing anything really new, and neither are you. Atoms and Time time are not a new ideas, and quantum mechanics is not injecting anything fresh to the conversation in the same way that...electricity hasn't recharged spirituality. Four dimensions is what we experience but may not be the limit of what exists -- not a new thought. Its an old thought discussed by multiple cultures repeatedly for millennia. (Why doesn't my spell checker want me to say 'Millennia'. Its darn annoying.)

 

[George-ananda]

Our understanding of the universe has progressed at an exponential rate, especially in the last 10 years. The question of the existence of God, however, is dead in the water and will continue to be so, I'm sure, since there is absolutely no evidence from before the Big Bang to work with--(by design?). For us Truth is God, wherever that leads, whether we like it or not.

For many of us our belief in the God/Brahman concept has nothing to do with the physical sciences or the Big Bang but from transcendent human experiences giving insight into the nature of reality. Purely based on physical science, I guess one would be agnostic, with God as an untestable theory at this time.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...Time has no reality except as a measurement of relative movement of the observed apparent aspects of the oneness....

Have you never heard of space-time? The arrow of time? Entropy? Atomic clocks?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I appreciate your taking a moment to reply. You already said most of this in your first post, and I don't think we have communicated well at all. There isn't anything really new when you start talking about God, the universe and meaning etc. Most of what you are talking about is ancient, literally thousands of years old stuff that's been discussed continually for ages and ages. I'm not inventing anything really new, and neither are you. Atoms and Time time are not a new ideas, and quantum mechanics is not injecting anything fresh to the conversation in the same way that...electricity hasn't recharged spirituality. Four dimensions is what we experience but may not be the limit of what exists -- not a new thought. Its an old thought discussed by multiple cultures repeatedly for millennia. (Why doesn't my spell checker want me to say 'Millennia'. Its darn annoying.)

Quantum level interactions occurring in an "external" timeless environment is new to science (re: my "kicking and screaming). Yeah, science fiction has played with time for centuries. But scientific theory suggesting timelessness is indeed new. And my definition of God as the embodiment of Truth, is relatively new. I came to it independently, but it turns out Gandhi thought of it first.

And here's something else I think is new, there are 3 cosmic firewalls limiting our knowledge to this 4-D universe: 1) The Big Bang. 2) limits to the division of our spacetime called Planck spacetime limits which are, 10 to -43 sec and 10 to -43 meters. And 3) most recently, the visible limit to the universe is 13 billion light years due to the expansion of space itself going superluminal there, which does not violate Relativity's speed limit.

Planck Spacetime is interesting because it's so small (if this dot >.< were expanded to the size of the universe, a Planck Spacetime unit would be the size of >.<. But theoretically, some things [supernatural entities, quantum offer/confirmation waves) could theoretically not be limited by the minimal gaps. Imagine something that's only 10 to the -100 meters, for instance.

For many of us our belief in the God/Brahman concept has nothing to do with the physical sciences or the Big Bang but from transcendent human experiences giving insight into the nature of reality. Purely based on physical science, I guess one would be agnostic, with God as an untestable theory at this time.

God is an untestable possibility, because there is no evidence, at all, either way. And what is an example of a transcendental human experience, and how does that relate to reality or even to something rationally comprehensible?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Sure, science says that God could be eternal... in the sense that because there's no evidence for God or any aspect of God, nothing in science contradicts the idea that, if God did exist, God could be eternal.

In the same sense, science says that God could be a juggalo: there's no scientific evidence against the claim that God likes ICP.

Now... the question of whether science says that God exists at all: I'd say that science leans toward non-existence (though not conclusively).

 

[George-ananda]

God is an untestable possibility, because there is no evidence, at all, either way.

I agree from a physical science standpoint. Our difference may be that you are only concerned with the physical evidence.

And what is an example of a transcendental human experience, and how does that relate to reality or even to something rationally comprehensible?

Well after decades of study I have personally come to believe that the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition has gone further into addressing these things than has both western science and western religion. IMO the sages, avatars and Self-Realized Saints of the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition have experienced the Source of consciousness and bring us concepts and understandings that we can begin to grasp.

Also from a less philosophical realm, my study of the paranormal has led me to believe the Eastern/Indian wisdom tradition has the greatest understanding of the nature of this expanded reality that my paranormal studies have convinced me does objectively exist..

 

[Rick O'Shez]

IMO the sages, avatars and Self-Realized Saints of the eastern/Indian wisdom tradition have experienced the Source of consciousness and bring us concepts and understandings that we can begin to grasp.

The problem is that the eastern traditions don't agree on these questions.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is that the eastern traditions don't agree on these questions.

It is true that I can not put every eastern tradition in one basket.. I have come to believe the Advaita school as the highest form of Vedantic philosophy after my considerations. It seems the most sophisticated and simple understanding put forth by an endless list of traditional and modern masters. And Advaita is also the idea behind so many western New Age thought and teachings. The teachers I have come to respect all seem to take this view as pretty much a given,

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you never heard of space-time? The arrow of time? Entropy? Atomic clocks?

Sure I have..these too are merely human concepts representing the persistence of existence of the oneness .....the oneness though is timeless....though the mortal ego mind who observes atomic clocks, does mathematical calculations, etc., is not.... Time as something real like energy or space does not exist...

 

[Unification]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

For one, I would first point out that the word "science" is not physical or observed in and of itself as with the word "God" which also is not physical or observed in and of itself. In other words, there are already words/phrases for "quantum mechanics" .... it is "quantum mechanics." There is already a word for Gravity. It is called, "gravity."

Science, or "knowledge/body of knowledge" resides internally. If one can see knowledge or science itself with there own physical eyes, do so enlighten me on how. If knowledge itself resides externally, please show me where. For I cannot see knowledge or science itself. . . or "time" itself for that matter.

One can say for both "science" and "God" that we feel its effects.

If one were honest, a human being certainly cannot fathom "God" always being there or the "universe" always being there. For it is easier to perceive eternity always being there.

Would eternity be considered "timeless?" That is, having no beginning or end.

Was I or anyone there when the foundations of this "universe" were set in motion, whether by "God" or the "universe?" I think not that I have observed such with my own eyes, therefore I do not know.

Can the dead beget the living or the living beget the living? Who knows such a thing?

Still see some minds here going to the "supernatural" or no external "God" can be found and "God" of the bible and how it's literally interpreted as proof of no "God."
How silly, as they know not there "could" be natural "God" or "God" within or "God" not of the bible and its literal interpretations.

Nevertheless, let us all not get frazzled over just "words."

I can see clearly what you're saying, "thepainfultruth." My response is in general, and not directed to what you have said.

 

[idav]

No, this isn't an attempt to prove God. I'm just examining the proposition that if God does exist, IF...., then does it make any sense to say, as the Bible and other revealed texts claim, that God always was? I've claimed for God having always been is a proposition that's beyond human comprehension.

Enter the transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. Until recently, that's the theory that's been expressed as quantum transactions occurring with offer and confirmation waves moving backward and forward in time. But that's counter-intuitive, just as much as there being multi-worlds or observer influence of quantum transactions. But what if we think of it as those transactions happening in an (?external?) timeless environment. Suddenly, even though no proof is involved or claimed, it becomes intuitively understandable.

I think that's an excellent reason to favor it.

I do think that science has found timelessness and oneness through physics which are attributes of a god. Of course science isn't allow to use such a label but people like Oppenheimer noticed when we tapped in to the power of an atom and he quoted the Gita.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Sure I have..these too are merely human concepts representing the persistence of existence of the oneness .....the oneness though is timeless....though the mortal ego mind who observes atomic clocks, does mathematical calculations, etc., is not.... Time as something real like energy or space does not exist...

Strange how they call it "space-time" then.

I suspect you are assuming that a personal experience of timelessness correlates to the way things are "out there", projecting out a subjective experience. Like when people experience inner stillness and project that out.

Too much projection, too many assumptions, too many unsubstantiated beliefs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Strange how they call it "space-time" then.

I suspect you are assuming that a personal experience of timelessness correlates to the way things are "out there", projecting out a subjective experience. Like when people experience inner stillness and project that out.

Too much projection, too many assumptions, too many unsubstantiated beliefs.

Yeh...about as strange as the term "work time"...."leisure time"....it is a distinction to qualify the noun "time". Space actual exists....time is merely the measure of the persistence of space to exist and has no existence as something tangible.. It is the subjective experience of the dualistic mind of the mortal that makes it appear as though time is flowing....but in fact it is only eternal reality doing what eternal reality always does....enduring..

Haha...have you been drinking again...there can be no experience of timeless......experience need some interaction of the human and the environment in which they are...and that takes "time"..

If you think time actually exists as a reality...show me it...I'm not just talking about vibrating atoms or pendulums that measure finite duration of the eternal presence of existence and using the label 'time' to represent it....

 

[psychoslice]

I think that it is arrogant to think that science would have any interest in anything to do with religion and its many flavors , why the hell would it ?......after all its all just a big story from an ignorant past........not worth even arguing over, yea baby, get over it !!.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Haha...have you been drinking again...there can be no experience of timeless......experience need some interaction of the human and the environment in which they are...and that takes "time"..

I have experienced timelessness, and stillness, all kinds of things. Haven't you? But these are subjective states, and there is no evidence they correlate to anything "out there", though of course that doesn't stop people making all sorts of assumptions about them.

Are you seriously arguing that the cosmologists got it wrong, that the fabric of the cosmos is just space, rather than space-time?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think that it is arrogant to think that science would have any interest in anything to do with religion and its many flavors , why the hell would it ?......after all its all just a big story from an ignorant past........not worth even arguing over, yea baby, get over it !!.

I agree. And scientific discoveries are awesome in their own right, we don't need to add a load of woo and primitive superstition.

 

[psychoslice]

I agree. And scientific discoveries are awesome in their own right, we don't need to add a load of woo and primitive superstition.

Yes, actually, it is so simple really isn't it ??

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yes, actually, it is so simple really isn't it ??

It should be, but it seems some people just have a strong need to believe in supernatural stuff.

 

[psychoslice]

It should be, but it seems some people just have a strong need to believe in supernatural stuff.

Yes this silly supernatural stuff is nothing but wishful thinking, yes, many of us are really dumb.