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

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

Timelessness means no time....how can you experience no time....neurons can't fire without time!

Space time is a handy concept when you are looking at the cosmos.....but as I pointed out....so is work time. It is a given that space continue to exist...and so time is the label that implies that.. space time....so show me how time is in the space....what does it do to make space continue to exist?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

And as I continue to point out, that's all the evidence there is besides inadmissible hearsay.

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.

Eastern or western, whether it's comes from a god or just a vision of spiritual enlightenment, it's all still unfounded hearsay.

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..

Objective existence necessitates non-hearsay evidence. What evidence?

And how does this relate to the OP?

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 !!.

As so often happens, irrational religious blind faith based on revelation is held up as being dismissable. And they are. But scientist from Einstein on down have considered the proposition of God, and modern scientists and philosophers have been forced to point out that a laissez-faire God cannot be ruled out.

And how does this relate to the OP?

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.

Consider the fact that the universe is a giant quantum computer (which it is, the only question being whether its been programmed or not), which fits with science, and some scientists have suggested it. That means, among other things, that every quantum transaction since forever could be recorded, including every impulse to every neuron in every brain, which could then be reloaded and re-executed. Now please don't twist my words as has been done so often already here, putting words in my mouth to the effect that this IS what happens. And, btw, this is neither silly nor supernatural, though we can't eliminate the latter from unfounded but reasonable speculation.

And how does this relate to the OP?

 

[psychoslice]

And as I continue to point out, that's all the evidence there is besides inadmissible hearsay.



Eastern or western, whether it's comes from a god or just a vision of spiritual enlightenment, it's all still unfounded hearsay.



Objective existence necessitates non-hearsay evidence. What evidence?

And how does this relate to the OP?



As so often happens, irrational religious blind faith based on revelation is held up as being dismissable. And they are. But scientist from Einstein on down have considered the proposition of God, and modern scientists and philosophers have been forced to point out that a laissez-faire God cannot be ruled out.

And how does this relate to the OP?





Consider the fact that the universe is a giant quantum computer (which it is, the only question being whether its been programmed or not), which fits with science, and some scientists have suggested it. That means, among other things, that every quantum transaction since forever could be recorded, including every impulse to every neuron in every brain, which could then be reloaded and re-executed. Now please don't twist my words as has been done so often already here, putting words in my mouth to the effect that this IS what happens. And, btw, this is neither silly nor supernatural, though we can't eliminate the latter from unfounded but reasonable speculation.

And how does this relate to the OP?

Good luck with your thinking, to me personally it means nothing, I rather adhere to what is known and not what is not known, thank you.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Timelessness means no time....how can you experience no time....neurons can't fire without time!

Time exists in our universe, but quantum level transactions take place in an "external" (for lack of a better word) environment--which, following Ruth Kastner I'm calling Quantumland. I'm not a biologist and don't know specifically how neurons work, but I do know that for the brain to register an image, light triggers an image to be transmitted by neurons, and the retinal absorption of light triggers a quantum transaction in the timeless, external Quantumland. The light traveled at the (timed) speed of light (duh) but the transaction between the absorber (retina) and the emitter (star, whatever) is completed instantly, i.e. timelessly.

Space time is a handy concept when you are looking at the cosmos.....but as I pointed out....so is work time. It is a given that space continue to exist...and so time is the label that implies that.. space time....so show me how time is in the space....what does it do to make space continue to exist?

What do the spatial dimensions "do" to make space continue to exist? Time gives existence to space and vice versa. Without all 4 dimensions, the Big Bang singularity would still be sitting there on the cusp of existence.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Good luck with your thinking, to me personally it means nothing, I rather adhere to what is known and not what is not known, thank you.

At one point, how to make fire was not known. Same with the wheel. "If man was meant to fly......." etc. Why would you avoid discovering knowledge, because it might cause you to rearrange what you "know"?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Space time is a handy concept when you are looking at the cosmos.....but as I pointed out....so is work time. It is a given that space continue to exist...and so time is the label that implies that.. space time....so show me how time is in the space....what does it do to make space continue to exist?

I will go with what the cosmologists say, ie space-time.

And this might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The light traveled at the (timed) speed of light (duh) but the transaction between the absorber (retina) and the emitter (star, whatever) is completed instantly, i.e. timelessly.

I think that is only true from the photon's point of view. To an observer it does take time for light to travel from the star to our retina, and indeed astronomical distances are measure in light-years.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time exists in our universe, but quantum level transactions take place in an "external" (for lack of a better word) environment--which, following Ruth Kastner I'm calling Quantumland. I'm not a biologist and don't know specifically how neurons work, but I do know that for the brain to register an image, light triggers an image to be transmitted by neurons, and the retinal absorption of light triggers a quantum transaction in the timeless, external Quantumland. The light traveled at the (timed) speed of light (duh) but the transaction between the absorber (retina) and the emitter (star, whatever) is completed instantly, i.e. timelessly.

What do the spatial dimensions "do" to make space continue to exist? Time gives existence to space and vice versa. Without all 4 dimensions, the Big Bang singularity would still be sitting there on the cusp of existence.

From the dualistic mind's perspective, space is real and it is called space...and the enduring nature of this spacial existence is real...and this nature is called time... so space time refers to the underlying unity of these observations... But this non-dual nature of space time can not be perceived by the human mind directly, only conceived of in the mind.. And so while some in modern science have intuited the non-dual nature of space time...non-duality as a concept to represent absolute reality has been about a long time in the religious traditions...and have other names for it....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

From the dualistic mind's perspective, space is real and it is called space...and the enduring nature of this spacial existence is real...and this nature is called time... so space time refers to the underlying unity of these observations... But this non-dual nature of space time can not be perceived by the human mind directly, only conceived of in the mind.. And so while some in modern science have intuited the non-dual nature of space time...non-duality as a concept to represent absolute reality has been about a long time in the religious traditions...and have other names for it....

Non-duality is a mode of experience, and claiming there is some correlation with "absolute reality" is based on religious belief rather than evidence.

Your continual muddling of "spiritual" jargon and science only serves to obfuscate. But perhaps you cannot even see the difference now.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Non-duality is a mode of experience, and claiming there is some correlation with "absolute reality" is based on religious belief rather than evidence.

Your continual muddling of "spiritual" jargon and science only serves to obfuscate. But perhaps you cannot even see the difference now.

I sometimes wonder about your logic Ricky, you do not understand what I am saying......prove to me by that non-duality has been experience by any mortal.....it never has and never will for obvious reasons.. But non-duality as a concept is common in religious doctrines.....and in the scientific context wrt space and time as space-time...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But non-duality as a concept is common in religious doctrines.....and in the scientific context wrt space and time as space-time...

Yes, the experience of non-duality is a common theme in religious traditions. But this has absolutely nothing to with cosmology or the unity of space-time.

This is what I am objecting to, the way you attempt to conflate and connect religious belief and scientific observation, these are chalk and cheese, completely different things. I think you muddle up these things deliberately, you want to imply that scientific observations somehow support your religious beliefs, when in fact they do not.

 

[idav]

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

I didn't see the OP invoking supernatural.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think that is only true from the photon's point of view. To an observer it does take time for light to travel from the star to our retina, and indeed astronomical distances are measure in light-years.

As I said, the light (photon) travels at the timed speed of light. But when it arrives and is absorbed by a retina, or a rock, the transaction between the absorber and whatever emitted the photon is completed instantly, or to be more precise, in timeless Quantumland.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, the experience of non-duality is a common theme in religious traditions. But this has absolutely nothing to with cosmology or the unity of space-time.

This is what I am objecting to, the way you attempt to conflate and connect religious belief and scientific observation, these are chalk and cheese, completely different things. I think you muddle up these things deliberately, you want to imply that scientific observations somehow support your religious beliefs, when in fact they do not.

There is no conflation in pointing out that the ancient religious traditions had knowledge of the non-dual nature of reality....and that science also now acknowledges this is understandable because that is the nature of reality....it is not as though scientists are studying a different universe....it is only one and the same universe...

 

[psychoslice]

At one point, how to make fire was not known. Same with the wheel. "If man was meant to fly......." etc. Why would you avoid discovering knowledge, because it might cause you to rearrange what you "know"?

That can be true, but you cannot say its true until it is true, you can believe in any think you like, but again its not true until it is true, and that's the tooth lol.

 

[idav]

Good luck with your thinking, to me personally it means nothing, I rather adhere to what is known and not what is not known, thank you.

What we know is a pantheistic type God can't be ruled out and actually reflects what we know of physics and specia relativity so far. Sure we don't know everything but as long as science continues to confirm it then it won't be ruled out. I'd even say there isn't anything I can think of that would rule out a pantheistic God, we already know enough to confirm universal oneness and timelessness due to special relativity and cosmology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So would it be fair, then, to say that your intended meaning of "God is eternal" could also be expressed by saying "that which is true does not vary with respect to time"?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Exactly, for or against.

If this is your position, then you're effectively arguing that the Bible and all other "revealed texts" are false, or at least completely made up (since if they were true and their claims were justified, this would be evidence of God).

... so why worry about what they say?

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?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don’t see the reason to even introduce the term “God” in to this discussion though. The term carries far too much emotional baggage for it not to be disruptive and you’re redefining it to such an extent that it doesn’t relate to its initial definition in the first place. If the kind of thing you’re think of does exist, it would be absolutely nothing like a God as commonly understood so would be much better suited to its own name.

I think you're on the right track, but possibly don't go far enough (or at least far enough to satisfy me).

At bottom, in my view, we are confronted with a purely existential problem. Either something exists, or it doesn't. Well, I'm going to try and turn an old phrase into something more interesting: "Nothing is impossible." But what if, instead of what we all think that means, it meant something more akin to "it is impossible that there should be nothing" (kind of like "nature abhors a vacuum.") That is, if it is possible that something exists, then existence itself is a brute fact, and if existence is a brute fact, then it (at the least) exists.

When we try to turn that into something more -- through the introduction of "God" -- we do ourselves a great disservice, and we completely destroy Occam's Razor. God is way too complex. It is "spirit" and it is "personal" and it has desires and goals and dissatisfactions. Think about it, without those, why would it create anything outside of itself? So not only do we introduce (without justification) something incredibly complex and inexplicable, but something that wants more than it already is.

It is much simpler to suppose that if anything exists, then it has "features." There is something that it is like for it to be, and if that is the case, it can change. And if it can change -- then science can eventually explain all of it, without the need to posit something as completely singular and unexplainable as God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I think you're on the right track, but possibly don't go far enough (or at least far enough to satisfy me).

At bottom, in my view, we are confronted with a purely existential problem. Either something exists, or it doesn't. Well, I'm going to try and turn an old phrase into something more interesting: "Nothing is impossible." But what if, instead of what we all think that means, it meant something more akin to "it is impossible that there should be nothing" (kind of like "nature abhors a vacuum.") That is, if it is possible that something exists, then existence itself is a brute fact, and if existence is a brute fact, then it (at the least) exists.

When we try to turn that into something more -- through the introduction of "God" -- we do ourselves a great disservice, and we completely destroy Occam's Razor. God is way too complex. It is "spirit" and it is "personal" and it has desires and goals and dissatisfactions. Think about it, without those, why would it create anything outside of itself? So not only do we introduce (without justification) something incredibly complex and inexplicable, but something that wants more than it already is.

It is much simpler to suppose that if anything exists, then it has "features." There is something that it is like for it to be, and if that is the case, it can change. And if it can change -- then science can eventually explain all of it, without the need to posit something as completely singular and unexplainable as God.

I understand what you say and mostly agree with the logic and reason you provide...except there is one thing that you miss. In pantheism, this 'something that exists as a brute fact'....is labeled 'God'....there is nothing external to it....it merely is all that is...known and unknown. I am not trying to conflate religion and science....just to point out that both ways have the 'something that exists as a brute fact' as their focus...science involves learning about the physical world...religion involves transcending the physical world..