You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[PolyHedral]

Machines may extent the range of our senses but they are still limited. There are many dimensions of reality that are not accessible to us.

[Citation needed]
Incidentally, I know you won't be able to provide a citation for that, because it's still being tested.

Primarily we are in the illusion that is what we see with our senses is the ultimate reality.

We dropped that premise in the 1950s. The ultimate reality is quantum gravity, which is not exposed to our senses.

 

[I-Ching]

Those that believe in God seem to forget that if God exists, I am exactly as I am supposed to be. For god is perfect and created me with his perfect knowledge.

Well the knowledge he imparted on me is to put some of my faith in Human science.

God gave you free will and you are free to misuse it. But you are not free to choose the consequences to that.

 

[Madhuri]

God gave you free will and you are free to misuse it. But you are not free to choose the consequences to that.

I do not believe that there is such as thing as 'misusing' in this context. I do not believe that there are rules about how we should act or what we should believe. Life is an exploration, and we've already been living forever (literally). Liberation is a choice, one that neither you or I have achieved thus far.

 

[Father Heathen]

God doesn't require anything but some souls desire to serve Him in that way. God gives various symptoms by which we can identify such a Transcendental person.

What method shall we use to determine and separate what's legitimately divine from what is fabricated gobbledygook?

 

[I-Ching]

What method shall we use to determine and separate what's legitimately divine from what is fabricated gobbledygook?

Are you speaking about the message or the messenger?

 

[I-Ching]

I do not believe that there is such as thing as 'misusing' in this context. I do not believe that there are rules about how we should act or what we should believe. Life is an exploration, and we've already been living forever (literally). Liberation is a choice, one that neither you or I have achieved thus far.

I believe there is a rule called Karma. When we don't follow the Divine Will we incur karma whether good or bad. Human life is meant for self-realization when we waste that life on other "exploration"s then we risk forfeiting it.

 

[Madhuri]

I believe there is a rule called Karma. When we don't follow the Divine Will we incur karma whether good or bad. Human life is meant for self-realization when we waste that life on other "exploration"s then we risk forfeiting it.

Yes, karma is a law of nature. But karma is not a punishment or reward system (in my opinion). It is only a law of cause and effect. It is objective. You do something, the consequence that comes back to you is equal to the action. Even if a person does not pursue spiritual life, he/she may incur much good karma for performing selfless acts.

Forfeiting spiritual progress is only a risk to the person who desires that progress. For the individual who desires material existence, his/her material life does not seem wasteful to him/her.

It is not that I disagree that material existence is a place where Realisation is the ultimate goal, but I do not believe that it is our duty to accept a spiritual life if we do not want it. Until the day we want it, we simply remain here. The problem I have with the idea of 'misusing our God given free-will- is that it sounds too Abrahamic. That sort of concept exists more for those who believe that God puts us here and expects us to worship Him and if we reject Him, he sends us to hell. I absolutely disagree with that thinking.

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe there is a rule called Karma. When we don't follow the Divine Will we incur karma whether good or bad. Human life is meant for self-realization when we waste that life on other "exploration"s then we risk forfeiting it.

What use is karma when it is inconsistent and disproportionate? Or if people aren't even aware of incurring it?

 

[PolyHedral]

Are you speaking about the message or the messenger?

I'd be asking FH's question, and say "Both."

It is only a law of cause and effect. It is objective. You do something, the consequence that comes back to you is equal to the action. Even if a person does not pursue spiritual life, he/she may incur much good karma for performing selfless acts.

Selflessness is not objective.

 

[bobhikes]

God gave you free will and you are free to misuse it. But you are not free to choose the consequences to that.

Thats fine,

Realize this, I understand all that you are saying. I understand the concept of free will and how God enforces it. I understand the consequences for choosing against the policies of the perfect god.

I choose personally to reject your god. I will never have faith in your god. I will take full consequences associated with making this stand.

Be happy for me!

 

[Madhuri]

What use is karma when it is inconsistent and disproportionate? Or if people aren't even aware of incurring it?

We don't need to be aware of karma. Our experiences naturally help us to mature, karma is simply the law of actions. It brings experiences and experience is all we need be aware of.

 

[Father Heathen]

Are you speaking about the message or the messenger?

Anything or anyone that claims to know, be of, or be from god.

 

[Madhuri]

Selflessness is not objective.

No, but that does not contradict what I said.
Selflessness may not be objective, but the karma received is not controlled by some intelligent being. It is a natural consequence of one's actions.

 

[Madhuri]

I choose personally to reject your god. I will never have faith in your god. I will take full consequences associated with making this stand.

Ah, but you don't know that you will never have faith in his god

 

[I-Ching]

Yes, karma is a law of nature. But karma is not a punishment or reward system (in my opinion). It is only a law of cause and effect. It is objective. You do something, the consequence that comes back to you is equal to the action. Even if a person does not pursue spiritual life, he/she may incur much good karma for performing selfless acts.

All karma is bad because it causes us to take another material body. A material body is form of suffering however nice it may be.

Forfeiting spiritual progress is only a risk to the person who desires that progress. For the individual who desires material existence, his/her material life does not seem wasteful to him/her.

Our personal opinions about the wastefulness of our lives has little impact on Reality. At the point of death it is God's opinion that will matter. In God's opinion the human form is meant for self-realization.

It is not that I disagree that material existence is a place where Realisation is the ultimate goal, but I do not believe that it is our duty to accept a spiritual life if we do not want it.

athato brahma jijnasa "now that you are in the human form of life you should enquire about the absolute Truth". That is the duty of all human beings.
If we neglect that duty we will incur karma.

 

[bobhikes]

Ah, but you don't know that you will never have faith in his god

Yes I do based on my beliefs.

I believe reality is only the perceptions of your experiences. Since he and I will never share the same perceptions or experiences my god will never be the same as his.

RF has proved this to me over and over again. No two individuals anywhere share exactly the same beliefs.

 

[Sunstone]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses.

Would you mind terribly if I asked you to quote the philosophers of science, historians of science, or scientists themselves, who say that the scientific method is based on the assumption we can know reality through our senses? Or is this just something you yourself came up with? Whatever the case, please -- please -- show me the scientific method that claims something is, in any metaphysical sense, real or reality.

 

[I-Ching]

Would you mind terribly if I asked you to quote the philosophers of science, historians of science, or scientists themselves, who say that the scientific method is based on the assumption we can know reality through our senses? Or is this just something you yourself came up with? Whatever the case, please -- please -- show me the scientific method that claims something is, in any metaphysical sense, real or reality.

Science is based on creating theories from empiric data. That empiric data is of course gather with our senses. The objective of science is to understand reality, well more to exploit reality. You're welcome to find some references that contradict that.

 

[I-Ching]

Anything or anyone that claims to know, be of, or be from god.

Well the messenger should be experiencing a higher taste of Love of God and therefore be transcendental to material desire. The message should be based on scripture and not concocted.

 

[Sunstone]

Science is based on creating theories from empiric data. That empiric data is of course gather with our senses. The objective of science is to understand reality, well more to exploit reality.

Please quit beating around the bush and instead provide quotes from philosophers of science, historians of science, or scientists themselves that support your amazing claim that there exists somewhere on this planet a scientific method that attempts to determine what is real or is reality.

You're welcome to find some references that contradict that.

That would be easy enough to do, but you're the one who asserted the claim. You should be able to support your claim, unless your intent in making it was to BS us.