Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Sup

[Scout_379]

If am wrong, please tell me, but i need details. Im trying to understand this myself, and I am willing to change, but i need reason.
What I meant by innumerable, is there were so many things (uncountable), leading up to and in the development of the universe and Earth. I was referring to everything, not just what sparked it. if you take my meaning

 

[heretic888]

I just gave my answer. Next time, have a little more patience, weed-happa!! :boing2:

 

[Flatlander]

If am wrong, please tell me, but i need details. Im trying to understand this myself, and I am willing to change, but i need reason.
What I meant by innumerable, is there were so many things (uncountable), leading up to and in the development of the universe and Earth. I was referring to everything, not just what sparked it. if you take my meaning

The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe. There is no space-time at that point. Any reference is completely nonsensical. We haven't an appropriate reference frame.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

My guess is that "attempts" like these always boil down to one thing --- fear. There is an actual fear of doing what it would take to "prove" anything like that --- which is personal development and evolution of consciousness. All of the various wisdom traditions are unanimous on this: "proof" for the Divine cannot be seen in matter, and cannot be acquired through logic; it is only attained from years of contemplative practice (i.e., meditation, dummies).

So, in other words, anyone trying to use logic or faith in order to either prove or disprove the divine--or, in general, address the subject at all--really recognize that meditating is the only way to do so, and are just avoiding it out of fear. They don't sincerely believe that they've come to any conclusions, they're just trying to avoid the truth. Okay, Freud.

Incidentally, I've been told that the only way to "know God" or understand the divine is to, basically, accept Jesus into my heart. Why's one explanation more justified and the other not?

 

[heretic888]

The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe. There is no space-time at that point. Any reference is completely nonsensical. We haven't an appropriate reference frame.

Y'see... now that's starting to sound a lil' Buddhist! :boing2:

The whole point of Shunyata or Clear Light Emptiness or Buddha Mind or whichever label you prefer is that It is Nondual --- the entire space-time reference breaks down when trying to explain It, which is precisely why all those cranky Zen masters are so critical of people trying to "figger it out" through logic and reason.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

So, in other words, anyone trying to use logic or faith in order to either prove or disprove the divine--or, in general, address the subject at all--really recognize that meditating is the only way to do so, and are just avoiding it out of fear. They don't sincerely believe that they've come to any conclusions, they're just trying to avoid the truth. Okay, Freud.

No offense, Random, but those complaints are about as valid as someone at a pre-operational mode of cognition complaining he has to "learn logic" to figure out the Pythagorean Theorem. There are certain methodologies used to acquire certain truths --- and no one "way" or "method" is going to tell you everything about everything. That's just the way it is.

Incidentally, I've been told that the only way to "know God" or understand the divine is to, basically, accept Jesus into my heart. Why's one explanation more justified and the other not?

Who says both explanations are not equally justified??

To give a short answer, my guess would be because the Zen roshi doesn't actually care if you "believe in" the Buddha or not. He cares if you actually understand what he's trying to teach you.

If not, you get a thwack on the head!! "No think, stupid!!"

Hee. Laterz.

 

[Flatlander]

I know. It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities. In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.:rofl:

Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.

 

[heretic888]

I know. It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities. In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.

Not just those dualities, either --- there is fate/free will, sacred/profane, good/evil, self/other, existence/non-existence, and *gasp, exclaim!* design/chaos.

Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.

Yup. To which the Buddhist reply would be something like: "and that 'event' is samsara itself".

Hee. "No think, stupid." *THWACK!!*

 

[Scout_379]

very true it depends on the sect. I was typing when I got the notification srry.

correction - notifications, I try not to be hasty but i thought i was done lol

like i said i am just trying to understand, not argue, I am truly sorry if it comes out that way.

to heretic888:

The illusions you are referring to are illusions because of the constantly changing nature of the universe and that it cannot be treated as as permanent. Nirvana is supposed to be the ultimate realization of this. I am aware that it is only possible from the human "realm"
If you are interested in buddhism, and the core teachings common in all sects go to www.buddhanet.net

To give a short answer, my guess would be because the Zen roshi doesn't actually care if you "believe in" the Buddha or not. He cares if you actually understand what he's trying to teach you.

my thoughts exactly

to flatlander

The problem is, you cannot refer to what caused the creation of the universe. There is no space-time at that point. Any reference is completely nonsensical. We haven't an appropriate reference frame.

I know. It's the same paradox as wave/particle, matter/energy, local/nonlocal particle communication, mind/body dualities. In fact, I see big bang and black hole in much the same light.:rofl:

Seriously, I think they are different manifestations of the same event.

very interesting, food for thought

 

[heretic888]

The illusions you are referring to are illusions because of the constantly changing nature of the universe and that it cannot be treated as as permanent. Nirvana is supposed to be the ultimate realization of this.

Well, it goes beyond that --- the realm of samsara actually is viewed as illusory.

Some scholars and writers have portrayed Buddhism as teaching some kind of "intellectual holism" over a mere "atomism" --- that all nirvana was was Buddha realizing how everything exists in intermeshed systems and webs and whatever metaphor those types like to use nowadays.

Nah, sorry. Buddhism would say those "webs" and "systems" are illusory, too. This is the basis of the Madhayamika teaching of Shunyata --- everything is ultimately empty, void.

I think a closer Buddhist answer would be: "the actual 'nature' of the Universe is neither permanence, nor impermanence --- but shunyata."

Of course, once again.... "No think, stupid." *THWACK!*

 

[Scout_379]

I'm still learning the stuff so bear with me. I'm not exactly fluent with the buddhist teachings as yet, and have alot to learn. You obviously have more experience on the topic, it would be idiotic of me to argue. But can we get back to the topic at hand?

 

[heretic888]

But can we get back to the topic at hand?

The topic being whether there is "scientific proof" of a God, Supreme Being, or Big Boom Bah in the aforementioned article.....

I'd say: nah. No how, no way, are we gonna find the Ultimate Answers by tinkering with quanta and black holes. Now, don't get me wrong, that stuff is interesting as hell and can assuredly complement our knowledge of the Kosmos...

But, at the end of the day, studying dirt will tell me about dirt. It won't tell me about God or Tao or Buddha or Brahman or Gaia or whatever (even if we provisionally accept that that dirt is a manifestation, expression, or emanation of Godhead).

The "Tao of Physics" is interesting, its provocative, its even indicative --- but its also, at its very best, little more than indirect, circumstantial "evidence" for God's existence. That's not proof by any scientific criteria.

If you wanna know "God" or "Buddha", then you know what you gotta do. And its not study math, examine microscopes, or read about social systems. As before, different truths have different validity claims, and different validity claims are tested through different methodologies. Contemplative practice may not tell me how genetic alleles randomly mutate, but it can tell me other stuff --- precisely the kind of stuff the author of that article is trying to figure out. And vice-versa.

Laterz.

 

[psi_radar]

There's simply too many variables to make a convincing argument for the scientific existence of god. The only "proof" I've heard of for the existence of god still requires an assumption or element of faith:

Postulation: God, by definition, is a perfect being. To be perfect, something must exist.

And as many variables the known universe presents, I believe it's too small of a venue to be confirm the existence of an almighty God, or his alias, the Creator of Everything. What's outside our universe? Empty space? Space is still something. Is it infinite or contained? What's outside of that container? Are there other containers like ours? Is there an almighty creator assigned to each of these containers? What's beyond those containers? We might never know.

What does it mean to be god? Can we, or other species evolve into creatures that resemble gods? Could we be fooled to believe other advanced races are god (s)? Could we eventually create our own planets, stars, galaxies? Leave our corporeal bodies behind to become beings comprised solely of ethereal forces? Can we challenge god? Who knows--perhaps we can, if we are able to get past all the human frailties we now possess. Then how will our outlook on the divine change? This is common Sci-Fi fodder--check out Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End or 2001, A Space Odyssey, the awful Star Trek V--and even some classics have a touch of it--such as Milton's Paradise Lost when Satan wished to become God's equal and was cast into hell.

IMO, if we want to seek the divine, we have to find it within, and be comfortable with what we find, not twist scientific evidence to create a story that spackles the cracks in our faith and belief system.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific". I think it's part of the beauty of faith and spirituality. It's a kind of trust in ...something greater than you.

At the same time, if someone is going to assemble scientific evidence for anything, by all means let us examine it empirically and thoughtfully. Some people see a divine hand in our existence - others, a probability. Those are not irreconcilable to me. But giving probabilities does not, in this case (and to my mind) offer a proof or conclusive evidence.

It does, however, allow me to reflect on the nature of the universe and how tiny and amazing our planet is.

 

[Flatlander]

Yup. To which the Buddhist reply would be something like: "and that 'event' is samsara itself".

I think that we'll run into difficulty looking at things from this particular reference frame, if we want to stay on topic here. The potential problems I see to begin with:

- Once one becomes "enlightened" science loses all relevancy,
- Language loses all value, except to help others achieve "enlightenment",
- When all is viewed as "one", what else is there to talk about?

Besides this, reference to this "oneness" doesn't take into account other's definition of god or designer, thereby negating the relevancy of their positions, in terms of being able to discuss the same issues. In order to stay on thread, I suggest we define God in the context of this discussion as "Creator". Nothing more, nothing less. In that way, perhaps we can all be on the same page.

 

[heretic888]

Just want to add a few things...

The only "proof" I've heard of for the existence of god still requires an assumption or element of faith:

Postulation: God, by definition, is a perfect being. To be perfect, something must exist.

Not a very persuasive "proof", in my opinion.

My philosophy professor put it like this: Suppose, for a moment, that we wish to envision "the Perfect Date". Someone that is smart, sexy, charming, and ...uhhh... willing. Another quality of this Perfect Date would be that she exists also. However, just because we have a conception of this Perfect Date who, by definition, must exist --- does not mean she's actually out there.

The same thing could be argued for "God".

I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific".

Whoa, watch your generalizations there, Mouse.

That claim isn't true for ANY religious tradition that I've come across --- although it may be true for the "average believer". At a point in spiritual development, it is said to be a matter of direct experience --- not faith or reasoning. This is just as true of contemplative and mystical Christianity as it is for the Eastern religions. And there are just as many saintly exemplars of this in the West as there are in the East.

I reference within the Christian tradition alone: Origen of Alexandria, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Genoa, Lady Bingen of Hildegard, St. Teresa of Avila, Meister Johannes Eckhart, St. Augustine (to a degree), St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dionysius Areopagite, David Boehme, the Theologica Germanica, the "authentic" Pauline letters (particularly Galatians and Ephesians), etcetera and so on.

All of the above describe their "belief" in Godhead in very direct and experiential terms --- very reminiscent of the Eastern mystics like Shankara, Nagarjuna, Lady Tsogyal, and Ramanuja. No "mere faith" here.

Once one becomes "enlightened" science loses all relevancy

Nope, sorry.

"Enlightenment" is, in fact, acquired through an extremely scientific process: you have the injunction or exemplar (meditative/contemplative practice), the datum or illumination (satori or kensho), and the principle of fallibilism (the supposed "enlightened" must compare and contrast his experiences/datum with those that have also successfully completed the injunctions --- thus the emphasis on community, or sangha, in all the great monastic traditions). The wisdom traditions, at their best, recognize themselves as spiritual sciences, and rightly so. Of course, again, only those that have completed the injunctions will acquire the datum --- as with all good science.

In addition, "enlightenment" --- contrary to what you may have read or heard --- does not make one omniscient. Shunyata tells me about the ultimate nature of the universe --- it doesn't tell me squat about socioeconomic modes of production, genetic engineering, automobile mechanics, quantum physics, or anything of the sort. Scientific injunctions are also used to acquire knowledge of these subjects, but they are of a different sort than the ones used to acquire satori (and each field, similarily, has its own injunctions). Ultimate truth does not automatically confer knowledge of all relative truths --- that is why there is such a dilineation between the two in all the traditions.

So, in either event, in no way is science ever made irrelevant.

Language loses all value, except to help others achieve "enlightenment"

Well, this part here depends on what you mean by "language".

In any event, in no way does language use "value" in the enlightened state. In fact, everything is regarded as having value in the enlightened state as all things are viewed as radiant emanations of Godhead or Buddha Nature.

The purpose of language is to communicate. This does not change with nirvana.

When all is viewed as "one", what else is there to talk about?

A lot, actually --- you will note most of the greater historical sages either taught to great numbers and/or wrote extensive treatises. I fail to see what bearing this has on the discussion, though.

Besides this, reference to this "oneness" doesn't take into account other's definition of god or designer, thereby negating the relevancy of their positions, in terms of being able to discuss the same issues. In order to stay on thread, I suggest we define God in the context of this discussion as "Creator". Nothing more, nothing less. In that way, perhaps we can all be on the same page.

I don't --- namely, because we won't be on the same page.

What you are talking about is an exlcusive position that attempts to privilege particular conceptions of "the divine" --- namely, the Judeo-Christian view of an ontologically separate "Creator". Ken Wilber pointed this out very explicitly in his "The Marriage of Sense and Soul". Namely, that when most people talk of "integrating" religion and science (which is really what this is about), what they really mean by "religion" is their particular religious beliefs.

The only way this could proceed is to go by religious definitions that basically ALL the traditions agree on --- which is not an ontologically separate Creator/Designer.

But... do all the great religious traditions agree on a Divine Mystery that is ultimately unqualifiable, beyond conventional human understanding, and transcendent of all qualifiers?? Well, yeah. Every. Single. One.

So, no, this "oneness" is not excluding others --- it is intimately found in most, if not all, of the wisdom traditions (reference Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth"). The Creator concept, however, is very excluding to everyone that's not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

Laterz.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm pretty sure I'm understanding your view here, so bear with me.

"Enlightenment" is, in fact, acquired through an extremely scientific process: you have the injunction or exemplar (meditative/contemplative practice), the datum or illumination (satori or kensho), and the principle of fallibilism (the supposed "enlightened" must compare and contrast his experiences/datum with those that have also successfully completed the injunctions --- thus the emphasis on community, or sangha, in all the great monastic traditions). The wisdom traditions, at their best, recognize themselves as spiritual sciences, and rightly so. Of course, again, only those that have completed the injunctions will acquire the datum --- as with all good science.

For me, the jury is still out on whether or not the answers revealed are the result of scientific inquiry when meditating contemplatively. I haven't been successful with this, and so cannot responsibly comment.

What I meant was, once "enlightenment" had occurred, my understanding was that now, the quest was over, the true nature of the universe was revealed, thus the scientific method was no longer needed in order to reveal the answers.

The purpose of language is to communicate. This does not change with nirvana.

I understand that. But the usefulness of language can really only be to help others realize their own buddha nature, thus, no unnecessary conversation. Debate on other topics has no right purpose.

So, no, this "oneness" is not excluding others --- it is intimately found in most, if not all, of the wisdom traditions (reference Adlous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy" and Huston Smith's "The Forgotten Truth").

I agree wholeheartedly.

The Creator concept, however, is very excluding to everyone that's not of the Judeo-Christian persuasion.

If the universe exists within consciousness, which I believe to be the Buddhist viewpoint, then couldn't it be argued that some part of that consciousness creates the universe? Therefore, Buddhists can have a creator too. All this rolled up into One.

 

[heretic888]

For me, the jury is still out on whether or not the answers revealed are the result of scientific inquiry when meditating contemplatively. I haven't been successful with this, and so cannot responsibly comment.

The three strands I listed above (injunction, datum, fallibilism) are the only required components of good science. And, they are applied to a number of fields --- everything from logic to mathematics to biology to psychology to meditation --- not all of which, obviously, are exclusively sensorimotor (or "objective") in orientation.

Why do you think there is such a strong emphasis on communal checking in the wisdom traditions?? Of the sangha in Buddhism?? Of the 'koan battles' in Zen?? Of communal solidarity in the various monastic traditions?? This is the principle of fallibilism, of communal validation, at work.

What I meant was, once "enlightenment" had occurred, my understanding was that now, the quest was over, the true nature of the universe was revealed, thus the scientific method was no longer needed in order to reveal the answers.

Well, there are also "post-Enlightenment" stages in the various traditions --- particularly emphasized in Vajrayana.

In any event, as I said before, absolute truth does not confer relative truth. Just because you now "know the true nature of the universe", doesn't mean you know how to drive a car or track the stock market.

There is plenty of room for both, in my opinion.

I understand that. But the usefulness of language can really only be to help others realize their own buddha nature, thus, no unnecessary conversation. Debate on other topics has no right purpose.

Actually, according to the Nondual traditions, all discussions (like all phenomena) are themselves Buddha Nature in its totality. Therefore, it wouldn't be entirely... "right" to say they have no "right purpose".

If the universe exists within consciousness, which I believe to be the Buddhist viewpoint, then couldn't it be argued that some part of that consciousness creates the universe? Therefore, Buddhists can have a creator too. All this rolled up into One.

Well, the Buddhist view would say that the universe was not "created" since its true nature is Shunyata, Void. That which was born cannot die -- and this is the meaning of "immortality".

In any event, the conception of the divine as an "ineffable Mystery" is much more universalistic than any Creator/Designer concept.

Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Quote:
I think trying to assemble evidence for the existence of God is fine to do, but misses some of the point of various religions, which is they are based on faith. At a certain point, believers (of whichever system) have to take a leap of faith. Some people might find this "unscientific".

Whoa, watch your generalizations there, Mouse.

That claim isn't true for ANY religious tradition that I've come across --- although it may be true for the "average believer". At a point in spiritual development, it is said to be a matter of direct experience --- not faith or reasoning. This is just as true of contemplative and mystical Christianity as it is for the Eastern religions. And there are just as many saintly exemplars of this in the West as there are in the East.

I reference within the Christian tradition alone: Origen of Alexandria, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. John of the Cross, St. Catherine of Genoa, Lady Bingen of Hildegard, St. Teresa of Avila, Meister Johannes Eckhart, St. Augustine (to a degree), St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Dionysius Areopagite, David Boehme, the Theologica Germanica, the "authentic" Pauline letters (particularly Galatians and Ephesians), etcetera and so on.

All of the above describe their "belief" in Godhead in very direct and experiential terms --- very reminiscent of the Eastern mystics like Shankara, Nagarjuna, Lady Tsogyal, and Ramanuja. No "mere faith" here.

Hey there, heretic. Point taken - it is true that the Fathers and Mothers of the Church, saints, and so forth, did have direct experiences. (I'm speaking from an Eastern Orthodox point of view.) My generalization should be applied, perhaps, to the remainder of believers - those who believe because of someone else's experience. But each person DOES have a personal experience with their faith. I think, perhaps, a leap of faith (along with my own personal experiences) must be taken for someone like myself - who tries to live in both worlds (which is really one world), of Religion and Science.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

No offense, Random, but those complaints are about as valid as someone at a pre-operational mode of cognition complaining he has to "learn logic" to figure out the Pythagorean Theorem. There are certain methodologies used to acquire certain truths --- and no one "way" or "method" is going to tell you everything about everything. That's just the way it is.

To quote Berty, "Please read what I wrote". I wasn't really arguing the point of whether meditation is the only way of coming to an understanding or knowledge of the divine--I am personally wary of that claim, but can't really say anything about it. What I was taking issue with was your claim that those who attempt to use logic or faith to address the divine are only doing so out of fear of meditation. Whether or not someone's intellectual argument for or against God's existence is viable or not, it's still being written as a sincere claim, and not just a Freudian avoidance tactic. Sorry, but I must make another comparison to fundamentalist arguments--"He knows the truth of the Bible, but he denies it, because he doesn't want to acknowledge his sin" (paraphrase).

Again, maybe meditation is the only way to understand God, or Budha, or the great Cheese in the Sky, I really don't know. I just don't agree that every person who writes an argument about God's existence is doing so out of fear or denial.

Who says both explanations are not equally justified??

You have in the past, though not in this thread.