Being scientific about God

[tvaeli]

I have lately reached the idea, what means being scientific about the God - so that an argument that the Pope would lie to a believer would not apply. Scientists have said believers in God are easy to deceive, but they did not reach a conclusion, what those people should do to be more modern and scientific.

We know that God is said to be "totality of everything", "the Truth" etc. We can make many scientific notations, about what such entity would expect from us, should he exist. Also, those are ethical things - the whole, the truth, and all those properties, do exist scientifically and we can term them as "God" even if God does not exist in separate consciousness - this takes our scientific view to the end, we can speak scientifically, what it is to follow the Truth, the Wisdom, or the Goodness.

Our collective, working together, creates some kind of God - a collective synchronicity, a Truth of higher kind etc., even if God does not exist. In evolution, bigger and bigger wholes appear, and they will be more alive - the collective consciousness of everything would evolve definitely and much of this has definitely been happening. We can identify this as God. Also, our ethical behaviour produces higher principles and brings the positive qualities into existence - this is beneficial to us and to the society, and so similar to God that we can talk about the God if it does not otherwise exist, as a beneficial whole or the all, which comes from our behaviour - this is the aspect of God of existing subjectively, as one believes in God.

We can do scientific work about those properties, the qualities of the real God, and be philosophical whether this is the real God or the whole of our activities and the Universe, which benefits from being the whole, and thus creates an entity, which can be spoken as God in action. Those two theories are definitely, in my experience, the same - the ethics and logics we appear. God is neutral, and thus it's like the Laws of Nature - so if something gives good ends and creates bigger wholes, this is our way to the God. It brings Paradise to an Earth, and reaching some kind of Paradise is also scientific - it's what we benefit from, and we can prove this and sane people would understand the proof or think they need to work on this, on ethical life.

When we work on this, we can prove scientifically that many things of the Bible and the Indian texts about God would really be the desires and actions of such entity, and when the society is creating this kind of whole out of it, thus following the God, it would definitely benefit us - the simplest model of this is "God", it's the simplest theory to describe such behaviour of the whole. When people learn this into scientific understanding about God, we would be modern and not depend on personal ego of some priest or teacher - we would see, whether their talk is scientific. If someone claims to be God or godlike creature, we would also measure their theories scientifically, and understand whether those bring the good karmic consequence a God would do.

This way, God would be equal to us - we work on theries about the God and reach our individual understanding, whether the omnipotent, omnipresent etc. nature of the Laws of the Nature would do this; we know that the real benefit of such being is mutually beneficial - the Whole and the Parts benefit from the same things; so when God is not beneficial to us, the evolution of the Whole would turn around and the Whole would evolve, creating a different God, or more decent reincarnation. By thinking independently, we are equal to God, in the sense by which democratic people are equal - to the law, the President is equal to a Cleaner, but they understand the laws better and probably follow them on much higher level; but the President is supposed to leave the Cleaner their free mind, and when they break their rights without reason, it's a hard case - a president can justify a criminal, but it's expected that he does this by the law. I do not see a reason, why the Goodest of the beings would be not equal in such sense, in the modern time, when people do not need so many orders and are able to think independently - God, also, would require us to be democratic and independent thinkers; this kind of motivation is indeed beneficial to the God and the society, as much as it's beneficial to the president, when the people have personal motivation. So it's very scientific that in modern times, God would not want us to be slaves of the priest, or manipulated - even if in more traditional times, when people had more rules and less individual motivation, God would have needed to be such as well, more similar to their common leaders.

By adapting this view about the God, Spiritual people would follow their motto - to be modern people, independent thinkers, even if very cooperative.

[Davino]

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Scientists have said believers in God are easy to deceive

Scientists are equally deceived, in a more refined way

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

We know that God is said to be "totality of everything", "the Truth"

How do you know that?

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

We can make many scientific notations, about what such entity would expect from us

How can you talk about totality and in the next line break it into so many fragments?

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

should he exist

it is Existence

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Also, those are ethical things - the whole, the truth, and all those properties

what does ethics have to do with this?

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

do exist scientifically and we can term them as "God" even if God does not exist in separate consciousness - this takes our scientific view to the end, we can speak scientifically, what it is to follow the Truth, the Wisdom, or the Goodness.

What do you mean by Science?

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Our collective, working together, creates some kind of God - a collective synchronicity, a Truth of higher kind etc.,

That's a fair point, like the mass hallucination of money.

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

In evolution, bigger and bigger wholes appear, and they will be more alive - the collective consciousness of everything would evolve definitely and much of this has definitely been happening. We can identify this as God.

Why identifying evolution and holarchy as God but not also involution and flat systems as God?

How do you square that contradiction with: "totality of everything" your first definition of God

Or are you just trying to make a scientific mind see intelligence in the Universe and make him by induct reasioning see God in that and in All?

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Also, our ethical behaviour produces higher principles and brings the positive qualities into existence - this is beneficial to us and to the society, and so similar to God that we can talk about the God if it does not otherwise exist, as a beneficial whole or the all, which comes from our behaviour - this is the aspect of God of existing subjectively, as one believes in God.

The symbol is not the Symbolized

Whatever happens or not with the symbol and its impact is, in my oponion, a bad direction to take your incquiry.

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

We can do scientific work about those properties, the qualities of the real God, and be philosophical whether this is the real God or the whole of our activities and the Universe, which benefits from being the whole, and thus creates an entity, which can be spoken as God in action. Those two theories are definitely, in my experience, the same - the ethics and logics we appear. God is neutral, and thus it's like the Laws of Nature - so if something gives good ends and creates bigger wholes, this is our way to the God. It brings Paradise to an Earth, and reaching some kind of Paradise is also scientific - it's what we benefit from, and we can prove this and sane people would understand the proof or think they need to work on this, on ethical life.

You are trying to create a Scientific fantasy of God.

Not very different from the religious fantasy of God.

Same structure and mechanisms, different content.

Same Ego-Mind and consciousness, less of a rookie theory

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

we can prove scientifically that many things of the Bible and the Indian texts about God would really be the desires and actions of such entity, and when the society is creating this kind of whole out of it, thus following the God, it would definitely benefit us - the simplest model of this is "God", it's the simplest theory to describe such behaviour of the whole. When people learn this into scientific understanding about God, we would be modern and not depend on personal ego of some priest or teacher - we would see, whether their talk is scientific.

If I understood you properly, you are saying to substract the actual "good" things from religion and help these religious people to see that through a scientific lens. So instead of denying their religion, a kind of honoring from the scientific perspective into the old time wisdom that is there. Meh, better than gross denial and unconscious judging but still poor. Good in theory but it's blind leading the blind. And there's no way to determine whether someone or something is scientific. You take for granted how much the Science notion is constructed

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

If someone claims to be God or godlike creature, we would also measure their theories scientifically, and understand whether those bring the good karmic consequence a God would do.

There is no way to prove God or Godlike creatures. Prove is a subset of Truth or the "totality of everything". This has been formally demonstrated by mathematician and logist Gödel, in his incompleteness theorems. How is a part going to prove the whole? How is finity going to prove Infinity?

Also rating Godliness by goodness is a disaster. Why? because what you say is good is what is good for YOU

Goodness is abused by the ego as a cheap slut

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

the Whole and the Parts benefit from the same things;

Do they? Or is that a vague generalization?

I enjoy smoking now and then. I'm damn sure my lungs don't enjoy it.

A tumor may come into my lungs, that part has a different agenda than the whole.

Alll benefit is another's one loss, all loss is another's one benefit. Nothing can be taken out or added to the "totality of everything"

You are trying to use the absolute in relative notions, whithout even being familiar with the Absolute.

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

so when God is not beneficial to us, the evolution of the Whole would turn around and the Whole would evolve, creating a different God, or more decent reincarnation.

You are talking about idols, shades of semigods created in egoic human minds.

5 hours ago, tvaeli said:

By thinking independently, we are equal to God

How do you know that?

Are you equal to God?

What is God?

Could you answer that for me... because your whole thesis is around something you have no direct experience with and therefore nor all the nuanced implications and ramifications you are trying to guess.

 

Edited May 14 by Davino

[tvaeli]

17 hours ago, Davino said:

Scientists are equally deceived, in a more refined way

How do you know that?

How can you talk about totality and in the next line break it into so many fragments?

it is Existence

what does ethics have to do with this?

What do you mean by Science?

That's a fair point, like the mass hallucination of money.

Why identifying evolution and holarchy as God but not also involution and flat systems as God?

How do you square that contradiction with: "totality of everything" your first definition of God

Or are you just trying to make a scientific mind see intelligence in the Universe and make him by induct reasioning see God in that and in All?

The symbol is not the Symbolized

Whatever happens or not with the symbol and its impact is, in my oponion, a bad direction to take your incquiry.

You are trying to create a Scientific fantasy of God.

Not very different from the religious fantasy of God.

Same structure and mechanisms, different content.

Same Ego-Mind and consciousness, less of a rookie theory

If I understood you properly, you are saying to substract the actual "good" things from religion and help these religious people to see that through a scientific lens. So instead of denying their religion, a kind of honoring from the scientific perspective into the old time wisdom that is there. Meh, better than gross denial and unconscious judging but still poor. Good in theory but it's blind leading the blind. And there's no way to determine whether someone or something is scientific. You take for granted how much the Science notion is constructed

There is no way to prove God or Godlike creatures. Prove is a subset of Truth or the "totality of everything". This has been formally demonstrated by mathematician and logist Gödel, in his incompleteness theorems. How is a part going to prove the whole? How is finity going to prove Infinity?

Also rating Godliness by goodness is a disaster. Why? because what you say is good is what is good for YOU

Goodness is abused by the ego as a cheap slut

Do they? Or is that a vague generalization?

I enjoy smoking now and then. I'm damn sure my lungs don't enjoy it.

A tumor may come into my lungs, that part has a different agenda than the whole.

Alll benefit is another's one loss, all loss is another's one benefit. Nothing can be taken out or added to the "totality of everything"

You are trying to use the absolute in relative notions, whithout even being familiar with the Absolute.

You are talking about idols, shades of semigods created in egoic human minds.

How do you know that?

Are you equal to God?

What is God?

Could you answer that for me... because your whole thesis is around something you have no direct experience with and therefore nor all the nuanced implications and ramifications you are trying to guess.

 

A good, critical answer. But my opinion has rather a lifetime of work behind it and it's able to go through that  I don't know how to split your answer into parts in this forum, so you must connect yourself my answers with yours.

I agree that scientists are equally deceived, in more refined way. But when you are deceived in more refined way, you have got somewhat further. Also I do not equate science with scientists, and for me, sciences made up from feelings of some sensitive or religious work by Augustinus etc. are sciences as well, I do not equate science with empirical perspective - but the material sciences of empirical perspective are important ones and it's hard to do without the qualities of those sciences. What is important about science, when we do not equate it with scientists, is the perspective of making the knowledge your own, instead of being based on authority - these kinds of liberties bring the motivation from the center to the whole, from top to the whole pyramid, and this makes the things much more evolved and effective and gives people personal meanings in their lives. I think everything we have or can have is far from perfect, but I think the "liberal" values of society, like being critical yourself, is important. Science is not equal to scientists, because they are supposed to present the truth in such way that people can check it personally; also I think many people around understand things, which are very hard for average scientist - for example, spiritual people have several truths, which all of us have experienced and concluded logically, and when we talk with each others, we are being scientifical; but we are not being scientifical for many scientists. Indeed, to be presented and communicated, to be a "real science", which is collective and not personal wisdom, we need to present these truths in a way, which involves more than our own understanding. But spiritual people can see directly, and verify some truths, and thus they are doing science, but not being scientists in all cases. I think an average scientist has failed important points, which are commonly know in many circles, and we find them only in more advanced theories like quantum physics and transpersonal psychology - but not in average science known by average scientist or skeptic, who is debunking people commonly in forums based on some 18'th century theories, which they can check in home. From such skeptics we can only understand that we are not communicating in clarified and useful ways, which does not lead people to confusion - they cannot be so skeptical about Buddha, for example, who does not take bold claims of creating anomalies in physics, for example -, so we can communicate better, but those skeptics, often considered equal to scientists, are doing less science than spiritual people in some areas.

That God is the totality of everything or the truth. I think to research something scientifically, in this case the will of God and whether you should follow this, we need some definitions. Definitions I gave you, you can find them in https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kybalión, a book containing some oldest theorems, which do define God in some way, which is metaphysical and looks like logic or science. When you research the Everything, you are researching the Everything and your results are true for the Everything, so when you define God in such way, you are definitely researching the entity you are researching, and you can call this God. Scientifically, Everything definitely exists and it's a good topic for research - for this research, you get answers about many things commonly attributed to God. If God is an omnipotent force behind Everything, being concerned about Everything, which would be more Christian definition - the results you would get would not differ in important points. To research the will of God in a way I am suggesting, you need some definition - your theory then holds about what you defined, and you can prove, how it's important to follow this. I think there are multitude of aspects of God, and things you can call God, and you can do science about whether those things exist, how they are relevant, and what is their nature - these theories hold whether or not you can call this thing "God". But I think the definition given in Kybalión really is enough to explain the words of Christ or stories of Brahma and Shiva, or behaviors of God in old testament, and thus you can get quite far with something, when you do the research based on this.

I think I can speak about totality and split it into fragments. There is the fractal nature of reality, where the structure of totality is repeated into the parts; and there are many other attributes, which help you to speak about the totality. Most general words like "goodness" define something, which is totality, but you can somehow apply and verify them in your own life. "Truth" itself is totality of something - when you find out more of it, it would change the light you gave to your previous truth; but it's still an approximation.

By science I mean, most definitely, the view of the world, which you are able to verify, and which allows you to find some general truth or formula from many separate stories and cases. For example, the pagan religions are not very different from new religions - given that the ethics was also less developed, and the culture and behaviors, so the cases of very good behavior of them would not satisfy us -, but the pagan religions are split into many separate stories, whereas in newer religions there is some common formula instead, by which you could invent similar stories yourself - so the newer religion is more scientific.

Yes like the mass hallucination of money. I am Buddhist and I have given some thought about the Buddha's words that he does not want to tell that God exists or God does not exist, because the reality is more complex. I think in reality, when people need to be independent or they do not have positive karmic connection with God, they can be atheists and this reflects the whole totality of the world, their world is completely coherent with the fact that God does not exist. When you believe in God, you definitely create a reality, where Godly things appear, especially when you co-believe. In ideal reality, God as defined by unity of all and truth and love, would definitely exist, so when the people live out their ideals, it appears so strongly that God exists, that they cannot deny this. Philosophically, we need to leave open the existence of God, as we shift our quantum realities. For different cultures, God needs to be different, and different understandings of God create different appearances - so it's also open, whether there is one God or many; each religion, for example, which believes in one God, also sometimes fights with another, which believes in one God - fundamentally, they are fighting about the same God, but it's also not wrong to say that they have separate gods, which serve them separately. The God, in my opinion, exists in such theme, for me, but when I explain my personal God to an atheist, I might try to give him a picture, which is completely wrong in the whole totality of their world. So I think the reality itself is "philosophical" about whether the God exists and what it is, and when you are trying to conclude something, you are being partial - in sense of God's totality, the "existence" or "non-existence" are probably conceptions, which are too small and limited to describe this thing. "Yes" or "No" usually are not enough in Godly matters or spirituality in general, the real answers transcend this binary logic, like they transcend the good and bad. This is the Buddhist and Taoist view, which is not very binary about neither the logic or good and bad, for example you would be wrong by thinking that your enemy is completely bad, or you would be wrong by thinking that God only wants to destroy the Satan or the evil angels - they are doing something more complicated than a simple binary battle, which is obvious even in Bible, which is quite close to defining things as good and bad (even if it denies the highest good in this conception in the story of Eve, telling that the raise of such binary truths was the great fall, but it's also a great fall to think that story of Even and the garden of eden itself is completely bad).

I am not identifying evolution with God, but it's very simple to see, how in evolution, the parts are approximating towards creating a stronger whole. God is said to be manifested and this is, then, the manifested God - in Christianity, it's said that by living good life, you help God to manifest, or the Paradise to reach the Earth. The other part, that Wholeness is simply true, exists rather in ideal, in Heaven, or in some higher realms. The manifestation is very material and it's commonly concluded that this is a thing-in-progress. In buddhism, your Mind is already enlightened and in it's final state, but you resonate through the states of Mind and the material, mundane world - there is also dukkha, the incompletness of the material world. I do not want to say that God is a product of evolution, but I do want to say that it's the ideal evolution theory is destined to achieve, to bring closer the unity and the truth; I think this materialized God is definitely growing, as God appears more in our lives when we follow the more godly thought. We can see the evolution of conceptions of God, and people definitely lived those conceptions - the manifestations of God as universal whole also evolves as those conceptions change; we can also speak of one God appearing differently to sychronize with the evolutionary state of those people - in some sense, such hypothesis form the same thing, and it's deeper than being one or many, for example are Christ, his Father and the God of old testament one or many persons, it cannot be answered completely.

"Totality of everything", also, exists in ideal state whether in Mind, the ideal realm, or as the existing real truth, which approaches anyway and cannot be broken very much.

I do not want to make complete assumptions about God - I think the Ethics and Logic, which appear in systems of energy, are mathematically very definite and they transcend, what God is, by definition. There are different hypothesis and possibilities, which hold up to some degree - but when you work through them, you can see that the theorems of Ethics and Logic you reach are just the same. Evolution, for example, definitely makes the appearance of Godly properties stronger in the materialized, manifested world - and it's one of the weakest assumptions about God, most easy to prove. You can get much further and prove much more complete God, but you have much less evidence in this. Existence of something is not only whether it exists in reality, but also whether it's beneficial to you - when something is beneficial to you, you are bound to create it, and it exists in a sense; something might exist very strongly, like stupidity, but as it's not very beneficial, this existence is not very stable and complete; finally, stupid people hardly have any word to say. To see that God, the unity and truth, is beneficial, is to see both the reason for God and the process, which inevitably brings it closer and closer to reality; also the case that in human activity, it's useful to create such attributes and when you do, they are quite real; when you don't, it's equal to have bad karmic relations to God - so if God as the unity of things is beneficial, you have the possibility of quantum shift towards existence and non-existence of God in your sphere of life; you either create good karma, so that God helps you, or you ignore God and he cannot help you. Philosophically, those possibilities differ so slightly that you can create a base conception out of it. You can work towards uniting people, aliens, the physical forces - then you are moving towards reality, where God exists. But if he exists without you, you do this to serve God, and he appears in your life. Philosophically, you cannot find the difference in these, so the existence of God becomes very subjective, but the basic truth is quite objective. From the cells, the humans and natural forces you guide towards God, probably the body gets some intelligence; which, in turn, can be born in human form (this is another complicated theory, but I'm not very interested in this - by cultivating Godly properties, you get closer to expressing God, and thus closer to being God; when you are infinity yourself, it creates the Godly karma - I think to be scientific about reincarnations of God, you need to do the science about how much their ability to express the higher truth helps you, and as God is bound to Karma - either by free will or by nature of being God -, you can see that they would not start to eat you out of your money).

The Symbol of God is very real. When you approach God as ideal force - people help others when they need it, the physical forces evolve to help you, you organize the inorganic matter, etc. - when people take this wholeness as the ideal, they also make it real that you don't see separate people helping you, but one unified force. You can argue, whether this force would get a consciousness of it's own, but probably it does; in religion, as well, when we live out the ideals of God, we bring God to our lives. When something behaves like God in all the matters, you can call it God - otherwise, the philosophical matter that you cannot be very definite about the existence or non-existence of something, becomes hard. In organized society, synchronicities and good luck appear, or what is otherwise called good luck, and nobody is doing this personally - such force you can call God, because then there is no more God, and what you speak about God, fits naturally with what we know as God.

About scientific fantasy of God - we never reach much further than a fantasy, but a personal philosophy of things, which exist anyway, is better than only searching for a teacher or a god, which would guide you. In modern, democratic and scientific, liberal world - this is more legal way of doing this. The scientific scrutiny helps to avoid cults, and the people would not behave in a way in which their Gods would be killed for breaking the laws; there comes the legal penalty of living in ancient, paganistic ways, when we do not bring our consciousness of God to the modern-day ideals.

Humans are not perfect, but humans, who think on their own, are known to be good for the wholes - if God is a dictator, he is enjoying something far from goodness (a godly property - a god without goodness would be Satan), and it would not be beneficial for us to follow God. We can see that the countries, small wholes, are moving towards more democracy and liberty of thinking, and this is good for those wholes; when we go to the end with this - if God is the last level of unity, he must only enjoy when we are democratized and scientific. For some people, indeed, their scientific theory could really prove that they speak with the real God - but when they do not apply philosophy and doubt to what they are being told, their understanding of this would still be limited.

My scientific theory is not about being scientific in sense of learning the science some scientists are doing. You cannot learn all of it and when you learn too much and cannot understand it any more, you are moving farther from being scientific - in science, you need to learn a simple model you can verify and develop yourself, and which allows you to repeat the experiment. Then, you are on your senses ..when you make demands based on more developed scientific models people cannot understand, you can be very scientific - but they are not. Indeed, such scientific people are imperfect, but I don't see what is perfect - God must manage this imperfection himself  Being scientific is about having your personal theory, which you can verify, but also the general models for communication, it cannot be so personal that nobody would understand you - you must also have some more general models to explain yourself, and they are probably material, as the five senses are very communicative - when you talk in sense of the sixth sense, you are talking nonsense to someone. Thinking and IQ also creates some kind of sixth sense, as you can see more in the same thing, but you cannot communicate only based on this - these are rather like philosophical speculations of yourself. I very often express, what I have directly sensed, as being philosophy people can doubt, because only when they understand my original experience, they can get something out of it, otherwise it's only a speculation.

About learning the old religions - I think when you have philosophy about God, you understand much more and see it in different perspective. I am quite sure that in old times, they were really able to be scientific about God and express the truth, and the scientist of these times cannot achieve much higher and more understandable general explanations than Christ. About whether something is science, I am not interested at all - it makes me rather angry, when people are making the bias of taking truth as something, which must be equal for different people. Truth is a very personal thing - which model works with your senses, experiences and personal understandings. Being scientific is not accepting one theory over others, or thinking that the fact that I have this theory would make it somehow mandatory that you have the same theory - this is rather dogmatism and leads to war, or destroying lives and attributing people false insanity. We have to live in the world, where truth is different for cultures, paradigms and people, and this process of science is much more similar to ethical behavior towards others than trying to be the others. The process of science is more about philosophy, doubting, skeptics and personal verification of truth, and good manners in communication and having different viewpoints - it's very important, when it's truth or absolute truth for somebody, and others can be inspired, but it's not mandatory that it should then be the absolute truth for everybody. There are different gods, like judaist, christian and muslim God - but they are the same God. The same way it's not a paradox that there are different theories and paradoxes, but they are the same - it's a religious war if you go to fight with your truth, and when science wants to achieve something final and ideal, to be believed by everybody, it instantly becomes a religion or cult in a bad sense. Science must make us able to live together with our different truths, stages of development and abilities to sense the world.

Really, when we create stronger models of cooperation and truth, we do not necessarily create God, but the appearing thing - something, which is probably whole and bigger than the sum of the parts - is consistent with the definition of God. When all the people follow the Bible, then definitely the "miracles" defined in the Bible, such as Paradise themes, would more probably appear in their lives. Then, some entity exists, on which you can apply the model of God - you can see in your life that some kind of God exists. We can choose to be atheist or theist, or something, which integrates the both - but in all cases, we need the common language to speak with each others. When you are a theist and speak about God, an atheist would have some ideas, critics etc. - then, by this philosophy, which transcends the doubts about existence of God, they can follow, whether you agree with the basic ethics, and thus criticize your God and verify that you are not a cult. You are more communicative - all the people need to discuss their matters, and then the sentences and the words should mean something to both spiritual and atheistic people. When the abstract entity, which appears as people do good things to each others, as a sum of all their behaviors, as a whole of their thing, is called God, and the abstract entity, which happens, when all people to bad to each others, is called Satan - then, in these terms, an atheist would measure, whether the ethics is correct, and be able to discuss deeply about the God with you, without believing in God - in terms that God would intervene and do miracles. Of course, miracles do not break the natural laws like less advanced witchcraft would do, if possible (more advanced witchcraft also leads to ethical results - in Fairy Tales, good always wins, but in advanced Civilization it would not even fight to win), but miracles make the laws of nature into effect more strongly; but they break the known laws for less advanced minds, or what they can do with the laws. Things, which are not possible in less advanced societies, do happen in democracy, etc., thus they are kind of miracles - miracles of economy, miracles of technology etc. Some of the biggest miracles are Life and Love, and there at least some scientific theories exist, existence of such miracles is entirely scientific, but when you see them as miracles, you give them some deeper meaning. Less advanced religions, paganism and witchcraft, easily fall into a trap of trying to break the laws of nature - get more money than you earned, control the people in bad ways, or believe that politics would somehow get rid of all troubles overnight; more advanced religions see the hard work you need to do for miraculous result, and do not promise the Paradise in five years; they also cooperate with people with good ways - it might be magic effect on people, but it follows the laws of nature that they also want to get something back and follow the good energy; so from successful witchcraft people cure themselves in psychiatric hospitals, to change their behaviors so that it would not be affected that way; but with religious effect on people, they would follow those energies even more, as they bring the energy back.

Energy is important thing, the positive and negative energy - energies creating good and bad results in our lives -, and it applies to people's relations with other people, natural forces, gods and other creatures. Theories of ethics and logic (which is used to see the borders, where you cannot promise more energy or energy coming from nothing) apply in all those fields - when we read the Bible carefully, ethics is so universal that we can also explain the God's will in terms of normal ethics in people's lives, which can be studies materialistically. As you follow the God, it starts doing things in your life - as many people follow the God, the union of them does good things. With natural laws, there are also some better or worse events, and eventually theorems of Karma hold.

In old times, people were able to contemplate on ethics, and the ethical theories are very advanced - the Bible, for example, is very advanced. I am a Buddhist and I do not believe that scientist of today has any better means to watch their mind than Buddha - he had all the means and history to develop an advanced theory, and he was so careful to not make big words and explain only the basic things he could see critically, that he does not make stupid mistakes and blunders against the science of today. In sciences of the old times, when the authors were careful to explain only the things they knew, not the things they imagined, they hold today as well; the religious leaders do not appear every day, strong leaders like Buddha or Christ - those specific people or reincarnations of God made very strong contributions, and scientists of today cannot easily create grand, but simple and easy to remember theories, which would apply to both materialist and spiritualist person - materialist, researching theories of Buddha by science, finds many correlations, which are useful for handling their mental and life problems; they do not have to believe in miracles. Theories of Christ are the same - very important statements about society, yet simple, and understood often even by very stupid and limited people, who would benefit from them. When you do your scientific work, you can find more evidence, but it's hard to create theories so useful; also, it's possible that God has really spoken his words - with science, you can understand it better and do your own contemplation, but for deeper understanding, you now benefit from such great works. I am Buddhist, and thus I take Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto and Bön very seriously - Buddhist did not try to conquer them, but achieved a common understanding; Buddhists met Christians, Jews and Muslims later, but naturally it's a Buddhist idea to be very serious about such reincarnations of God or appearance of his Prophets, and I also think West is very efficient in metaphysics - every religion adds some important aspect to completeness of Mind. I am Buddhist, because this theory works for me, is not oversimplified, and mostly explains all the facts. I also believe in older religions, such as shamanism, but I know that with original works of those religions, it takes much more effort to reach advanced ethics; in modern times, the work of decent religions and ethical and other theories are taken into account and thus the modern Pagan is normal, ethical and civilized person - it's very interesting how they can explain those things with simpler and more primitive basis, and also how much more they know about natural lifestyles, living in forest and maybe situations, where civilization is not going to help - the grand theme of countries themselves is not so civilized and the big wars are more like fairy tales than Christian stories. The modern science has developed something very similar to religion - advanced psychology, political and economic theory - and to keep the language communicative, you can see that in civilized world, compared to paganism, some hidden entity comparable to God is helping you more. Theory of God should not depend so much on the existence of God - you need to discuss your things also with atheists, and thus they need to know what they mean by God when they do not believe in one.

There is a way to prove God or Godlike creatures. The probability of God being born and killed like Christ - it's a disaster. God must follow an ethical and scientific knowledge, which extends the ethical and logical theories into infinity. When human mind is infinite, Gods mind must be infinity, where human mind is very small. When your theoretical and practical aspects deal with consequence of actions or situations, where infinite consequence is taken into account, you are a godlike creature. For example, when a scientist follow scientific theory of ethics, where the consequences are taken into infinity in space and time, and the theory provides many guts about those infinities in real situations, that scientist is also a godlike creature. For God, karma is important - God must be good - and they do not want to abuse you, thus, you can be very realistic about this person, how much you win and how much you give them, how much you respect them etc. - even if they do miracles to help you, the miracles have manifested physical forms and you can understand this even on basis of materialism, that they are successful in their doings - in the end, miracles are about food, housing, synchronicity and other simple things, and this is measurable when people have good energies, good psychological conditioning with you. This is questionable, whether someone is God, and also they can feel God is they are simply very developed; people say they are gods when they have reached some level of illumination. You can see the consequence of actions of such people are very good even when they are complex, and there are scientific, material models to understand that. When you behave with them on normal scales of such consequences, and think that God of modern world is not a dictator, but a person like you, you can be safe about people, who discuss their godlike properties or hide some. When god wants to behave like barbarian king ..well, it's Odin or Thor coming back, and you rather educate such disaster.

Goodness is a word, which can be used for good Karma, and all the miracles - even in business and politics, the new technologies and better forms of government -, they come from good karma somehow. Person being a god or the God must be related to them being valid in infinity, being intelligent not locally, but more universally, and as you follow your consequence further, from simple search of your own good you reach ethics. People today call themselves gods or God in many different meanings and ways, but we need to validate, what this actually means in our society. We create normal relations with such people, which take into account their real, mostly visible abilities - everybody has some invisible abilities - and we are completely off the track if we think that some God wants to put us into slavery, abuse girls and demand large amounts of money - rather, if God created democracy and all it's rules - if God is Truth, he must also be a Democrat, because the Truth itself has managed to make democracy stronger than older forms of government -, God must also follow the democracy.

What is good is good for me? I constantly work to synchronize myself for higher good, and I believe in this process. I cannot take this statement as definite final truth - and if it's a theorem, you cannot avoid that. When people have philosophy and their own freedoms and minds, they can manage to reach states of higher good alone and together.

About smoking ..I think there are still extremes, where you do not smoke to avoid some pain or a problem. It's possible that God has some addictions or weird attributes, but I think if they are not reasoned somehow, they slowly disappear. In old societies, really the wholes did things not beneficial to parts, and the parts followed laws less - as it develops, it emerges that truth, which holds and does not die in time, is that the whole and the parts share the common good. Also you can smoke, but you do not want to cut your finger or punish your hand so easily, you rather work in union - your example is a small case. And once I left smoking, but then I started to feel that I have some deeper reason for it  Quite unexplainable, but this was my strong feeling.

About idols and semigods - I think that the manifestation of God is constantly evolving, and which was the real God in the past, is less in the future. We call people, who follow God in manner of primitive society, as forming cults - but in those primitive societies, such direct themes of punishment and reward were really the only way; a modern people see the punishment and reward in much grander themes and tends to generalize the ethics into infinity, and thus follow some principles, instead of punishment and reward. In more advanced societies of future, the ways we follow God today, might also seem as slavery, or cult, or following the idols. Thor, in his own time, was not an idol - but who follows him today in identical way, would really do something insane, it's equal to fighting with axe in the forest.

Also, God in the past needed things, which are considered crimes today. For example, nowadays God would, in many scenarios, definitely tell you to go to court with a person and treat them legally, instead to secretly kill them; in some older society, where many things were handled by murders - it was normal for God to do the same. You can have a psychological problem if God appears telling you something about a person, and you carry on the thought until you think he demanded a secret murder; legality of today is more scientific and you need to follow this, but it's possible God can inspire you to find a criminal.

About equality of God. There are many ways of equality and naturally, God is more productive than normal person, and higher. But, there are different terms of equality. Spiritual equality is said to connect all beings, high and low - God, being ethical, is definitely not telling you he is outside of this equation. Legal equality is equality in terms of the laws - you do not lose anything if you are not higher by law. Equality in science is that you get the arguments, not simply orders for life - God of the past would give you orders, like any other man, but God of today would not have permitted democracy or hospitals, where some relations about God are treated, if he would not talk with people like an equal being. In old times, it was a virtue to follow someone without questioning, but today it's a sin. When the leaders work hard to get people more independent, and the states lose nothing from it - why would not the God be the same?

I know that by many personal experiences as well, and from holy books and science; but this end result is more or less completely scientific, as much as I can do. I like to describe God, if at all, in terms of causes and effects, consequences and ethics, and not by telling people his words directly - unless I see the deep meaning in those words. If I don't see the meaning, I would talk nonsense anyway - if I follow something I don't understand, I probably do it wrong.

About what is God, there are several things, which you could believe:

He is behind the reality, and his well-being is dependent of well-being of reality. Then, it's like being a being, who unifies all the different agendas into one.

He is the basic Truth, the basic Law of Nature. When God treats every person and thing equally, natural laws would appear, and we can measure his will with scientific experiments, taking the chains of consequence into infinity - into principles. Omnipotent creator God cannot easily be anything other than the Laws of Nature, and the Truth behind them as motivating force.

He is the Truth, Love and Power. God is as those Forces appears, and when they disappear - God is not present, but there is rather a devil, or something neutral permitting you live an atheist life. With positive qualities of God, he cannot be Lies, Hate and Powerlessness - rather, those are the shadow of God, some complex consequence he cannot avoid, not his prime personality. To follow God means to strengthen those things, until they bring miraculous new qualities into our lives - when they commonly form, and create a whole larger than the sum of it's parts, the speak, where you talk about such presences and actions in totality, is the speak about God. For common language, an atheist would need to understand the material karmic theories of such appearances, to point out the God; for example, if the infinite consequence of your actions is proven bad by science, this science is also telling you that God does not want this. You can speak directly with God and find out differently - but you don't know who you are speaking with, and the philosophical and scientific clarity brings you much closer to such understanding; treating all entities equally you can find out, how beneficial this entity is, or how correct the signs you follow are, and treat it accordingly. Truth, Love and Power are not Truth, Love and Power if they are not those things in complete, total reality.

He is the totality of everything, the All - this is an equivalent theory.

Why I say it's important that God also appears in evolution - evolution is a process of approximation towards Truth; and when Truth partially holds right from the beginning, as otherwise is impossible, it gets stronger and stronger in evolution. In religion, people in time get closer to God and Paradise - thus, in other terms, they have better God and better Realms to live.

[Razard86]

17 hours ago, Davino said:

Scientists are equally deceived, in a more refined way

How do you know that?

How can you talk about totality and in the next line break it into so many fragments?

it is Existence

what does ethics have to do with this?

What do you mean by Science?

That's a fair point, like the mass hallucination of money.

Why identifying evolution and holarchy as God but not also involution and flat systems as God?

How do you square that contradiction with: "totality of everything" your first definition of God

Or are you just trying to make a scientific mind see intelligence in the Universe and make him by induct reasioning see God in that and in All?

The symbol is not the Symbolized

Whatever happens or not with the symbol and its impact is, in my oponion, a bad direction to take your incquiry.

You are trying to create a Scientific fantasy of God.

Not very different from the religious fantasy of God.

Same structure and mechanisms, different content.

Same Ego-Mind and consciousness, less of a rookie theory

If I understood you properly, you are saying to substract the actual "good" things from religion and help these religious people to see that through a scientific lens. So instead of denying their religion, a kind of honoring from the scientific perspective into the old time wisdom that is there. Meh, better than gross denial and unconscious judging but still poor. Good in theory but it's blind leading the blind. And there's no way to determine whether someone or something is scientific. You take for granted how much the Science notion is constructed

There is no way to prove God or Godlike creatures. Prove is a subset of Truth or the "totality of everything". This has been formally demonstrated by mathematician and logist Gödel, in his incompleteness theorems. How is a part going to prove the whole? How is finity going to prove Infinity?

Also rating Godliness by goodness is a disaster. Why? because what you say is good is what is good for YOU

Goodness is abused by the ego as a cheap slut

Do they? Or is that a vague generalization?

I enjoy smoking now and then. I'm damn sure my lungs don't enjoy it.

A tumor may come into my lungs, that part has a different agenda than the whole.

Alll benefit is another's one loss, all loss is another's one benefit. Nothing can be taken out or added to the "totality of everything"

You are trying to use the absolute in relative notions, whithout even being familiar with the Absolute.

You are talking about idols, shades of semigods created in egoic human minds.

How do you know that?

Are you equal to God?

What is God?

Could you answer that for me... because your whole thesis is around something you have no direct experience with and therefore nor all the nuanced implications and ramifications you are trying to guess.

 

Great post!!! The only gripe I have is the proof argument. Verification is proof. When you awaken you prove to yourself that there is a God, and if you awaken further you prove you are both the part and the whole. So the part can prove it is the whole, but it can only prove it to itself because it is itself. 

So there is proof, the proof that Godel proposed was that infinity is beyond logic. Logic deals with cause and effect, but God is acausal, it creates the cause, but it wasn't caused. It always was. Something always existing, is beyond logic, because logic is bound to the world of cause and effect. One has to expand its logic to include acausal, which....well completely nukes mathematics because you can't measure something that is not bound by cause and effect. 

So basically the proof is the ability to perceive the connection. Whereas logic is biased towards division.

[tvaeli]

My answer, to cover all your topics, was very long. So I write down the short points:

God is the Totality of All, including the Truth, Laws of Nature, the First Cause of it's birth; it's the entity of those all - the causes and effects in action, to the last and final, in infinity, are God. It's equal to Goodness and purified mind. The opposites of these things, like the Lies, breaking the Laws of Nature (doing something with intent, which actions are later cancelled out or lost in evolutions), the badness - it's not God, but rather the Satan.

In the Laws of Nature, the Truth appears, things get always better and more synchronized. So, in time, all those aspects of God appear more strongly. It's also consistent with religions that as time passes, we get closer to Paradise and the manifested God in our lives and the civilization. The Reason, indeed, in some form existed right from the beginning - I personally believe that when some future is impossible by laws of Nature, this impossibility also affects the past; from Quantum Physics I know that the light somehow moves in accordance with the future, but I believe all the laws of nature are like this. So, by the Reason, the reality without God might be impossible. I also believe that the whole is a frequency, and this appears as a God as person when some beings are born on this frequency. But the God as person - people are said to become Gods as they become enlightened; their minds become infinite and thus, they are more equal to God or rather gods. There is the total infinity, but there are also many degrees of lesser and greater infinity - when you reach infinite potential, "god" is the general word, which describes that. In material world, when a person is born with mind able to work to infinity, it's kind of reincarnation of God. There are many meanings and shades, what people mean by somebody being God or god - there is one, complete definition of God, but also what is getting closer to this, is somewhat one of a kind.

Science is commutative, and thus to speak scientifically - we need definitions, which apply not depending on whether God exists. Thus, the results of the process of unification, the appearance of higher truth and goodness, the reason, which brings us closer to this and gives meaning to move towards paradise and godlike properties of our reality; all this has to be seen as God.

To be decent people of modern society, we need to know that for a good leader or a good country, it's highly important that people are independent and understand the meanings of their actions, rather than simply following the orders. It's unreasonable to think that this is not beneficial to God - we expect God to be "equal" in sense that he, also, does not simply order us, but inspires and helps to understand.

Being scientific, for a civilization, might be creating big and unified theories - for a person it's more a process of finding models, which are understandable to them, and help to work on their truth on their own. When you follow a theory you do not understand, or a spiritual text based on visions you do not see and senses you do not have - you are not scientific, but easily manipulated and not able to work on this truth at all; you also make wrong decisions, because you get wrong answers with formulas more complex than you can manage. Scientific personality is not a person of top science, but a person, who has based their lives on models they can understand and develop further. We need some degree of trust and authority, but even this has to be questioned. Truth is a personal thing - it's a model, which works for you; it can be in contradiction with other models, which work as well, because the essential implications of the model work very well, but there might be side-effects coming from simplicity, or the complications of not having an unified model; all the paradigms are that up to a degree.

We are scientific about the God, when we have deep philosophy, which reflects the causes and effects of us in reality, as if the reality is a big creature. By natural sciences, it's similar to creature anyway - the society and it's interaction with the ecosystem has all the properties, like being able to react, to learn, etc. In such way, God might exist or not exist, but in both cases we can be very sure what we mean by reflecting the will of the God.

Having good science, we can still be interested in works of reincarnations of God, prophets or people, who speak with God - but we can reflect this better and are less prone to manipulation.

[tvaeli]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

Great post!!! The only gripe I have is the proof argument. Verification is proof. When you awaken you prove to yourself that there is a God, and if you awaken further you prove you are both the part and the whole. So the part can prove it is the whole, but it can only prove it to itself because it is itself. 

So there is proof, the proof that Godel proposed was that infinity is beyond logic. Logic deals with cause and effect, but God is acausal, it creates the cause, but it wasn't caused. It always was. Something always existing, is beyond logic, because logic is bound to the world of cause and effect. One has to expand its logic to include acausal, which....well completely nukes mathematics because you can't measure something that is not bound by cause and effect. 

So basically the proof is the ability to perceive the connection. Whereas logic is biased towards division.

Gödels proof, for me, mostly proves that scientific theories can be both valid and contradictionary - I also result this conclusion from theory of Paradigms. This results that in scientific theories, we can not easily "debunk" people, but there needs to be ethics - models, which fit different people, can be most efficient for them - simple and explanationary -, but when we look them directly, there seem to be contradictions.

The existence of God is not so simple - when you awaken, yes, you can prove there is God and you are both part and a whole. But when you fall more asleep, you can prove there is no God and you are not whole at all, maybe you are not even a part, but you don't matter at all. When you seek independence or do not create karmic bonds, but break all of them - God cannot help you, but leaves your life. This can happen for good - you take responsibility and become more independent, until you reach God again in independent way - or for bad - your karma simply breaks up; in this case life forces you to repair your karma. In quantum reality, you shift between heavens, hells and more neutral states like Earth - they form complete realities. In reality, where you do not have karmic connection with God, you link with people, who do not have this; enlightened people can not do visible miracles near you - they become easily debunked - and you cannot see or access the good karmic connection; your karma is either completely neutral or bad. You might build an atheist life, which is quite successful, but without karmic connection to God. These realities are real - when you quantum shift, you move to other, very real, and complete reality, which surrounds you everywhere, nobody can do anything miraculous you can see - it's either out of your perception, or simply impossible; people, who want to impress you with miracles, simply lose their abilities until they fix their karma. In this quantum realm, God really does not exist, and it's insane to suggest that he does - the only model, which works for you, is without God. You can still believe in God of some kind. This makes God highly subjective. God is beyond existing and unexisting, it's beyond being one or many, beyond being true or false - Buddha never told whether God exists, but he said it's a very complicated topic and you reach this as you experience. Your quantum world contains God and you can see it's true ..but it's your reality! You can live a life, where you do everything yourself, and you can never give back to the world, when God helps you - you reach the reality, where God does not exist. You can change your religion, and God would appear differently, or the time passes and in new culture, the God also appears to be higher, he has higher manifestation - in this sense, you cannot say whether God is one or many, and you cannot say definitely that he is not getting better in material, manifested reality you see. When you get much higher - you can be sure, God as you see him would simply do the same, and it would be kind of different God; he cannot help you in ways, which you cannot answer at all. There is something permanent, already enlightened about God - but also you, in some sense you are already perfect and enlightened, but in the material world you can see yourself evolving and hardly reaching this, those experiences come and go as the day and night are changing (jewish religion says day and night are changing forever). You have to see that your quantum shifts take you to another, complete reality, and the theorems there are different - by some kind of synchronicity, those worlds can co-exist in the same place. Religions learn from God, but then they have wars between each others, it's hard for God to be the same. From perspective of the world, where God does not exist, you can still have some understanding of God when you consider it's attributes - you can describe the reality in terms of appearance of God's attributes and the benefits you get when you work for those. From perspective of the world, where God does exist, you can see that when you don't follow him at all, he disappears and kind of does not exist. And, another enlightened perspective sees your mind as the whole, but it does not attribute so much to the God - it says it's your own world and you get what you create; this seems distinct theory, but it's as good as others to describe something real about the deep, underlying reality. This topic is philosophically deep and when only what you know for sure is left, and when your theory fits everybody - you are left with something, which is not so simple as binary logic.

The same way, God treats everybody and everything equally, thus the same causes have the same effects - this creates appearance of the natural laws, which do not need to be explained by God. Natural Laws, they still form some union, which can be called God. When you study this evidence of the material world, you also study God; and in theory, you need this word to transcend the need to be sure, whether God exists - the attributes of God, in reality, like appearance of Truth, all exist anyway, and you benefit from them, thus they exist in sense that when you work for them, they work for you and exist; God, if he exist, would also leave you if you do not have the karmic connection - thus, if God exists, you get the same theory that he is what you create. So the theory is also that you create your own reality, and this is an aspect you can follow without "believing in God".

You can apply logic to the parts and the whole.

For example, you can assume that when all the parts do better, unless they harm others by doing better, then the whole also does better. You can do better by harming others, but you can do better by helping others. The whole benefits, when you do better by helping others (who deserve it?). Finally, when they do not deserve, they finally lose if you give them what they do not deserve - so, maybe you still help them by not giving what they do not deserve, but helping them further in deeper ways. But some people want to be independent and not get your help, and you could think that they do better if you help them - but they say they have right to not be your friend, then, painfully, you reach that you get better karma by not being their friend, and you are kind of dependent yourself when you constantly try to still create the friendship. Now, you know that when you create these win-win situations, you also create something for the whole - when you create lose-lose and win-lose situations, the whole would benefit less. Then, you can conclude that what Christ said that you help God and God helps you when you help others - this must be true by several possible models of what God is. Then, you have proven this and your study of Bible is a little bit more scientific - you can see that if God is born as a person, he would definitely tell this to you; you cannot see from here, whether Christ was God, sent by God, or a person with Godly character, but you can see that the story that if God is born he would tell you this and exactly this - it's true. You can show this theory to an atheist, and he would agree that parts help the whole this way, and with certain attributes of the whole you can see the force of God, the love of God, and the Wisdom and Truth of God in this way; so he might not believe in God as separate living entity, for example, or he might not believe in God in some other sense, but he would believe that by creating such model and following it this way, you are following something he could also prove in the material world - when people all apply the win-win situations, the godlike force appears in their life, and it's true that the Paradise would come to Earth as we get better in this. Heaven is a world you enjoy, and an atheists all use this term easily - when they get good marriage, good job and good friends, they can agree that they are in Heaven, even if they do not believe in everything you can say about lokas and heavens.

Also, the life after death. In Buddhism, Christianity and older religions, the good deeds have consequence beyond the realm you are living in, beyond your current life. This is extremely painful statement for an atheist and he would see you are deceived to something. But, philosophically, we can show that by transcending our ethics to limits, to infinity beyond the visible results of the ethical theory - limit in mathematical sense is a function of unconstrained continuity; and when we also consider the future generations and others people, we also get something like good karma beyond our visible life. The consequences of all kinds appear, come into our lives, which we cannot directly follow that good comes from the good. When we take all those hypothesis together, we can create a neutral theory, which considers the afterlife, but gives us a model, which is quite much identical not depending, whether this exists - we can show that we lose nothing by having an afterlife model. This is more scientific by removing the doubt - where we can doubt, we have a theory, which considers all the possibilities and creates the same model of actual life. Why it's more scientific - it might be not more scientific for some people, who have memories of past lives or strong visions of future lives, or both. But science is not the force of solitude, but a force of collective - we need to speak about it. When we speak, we consider not only our own perspective, experience, wisdom or need to believe something, but we consider also others; we look for common language, which everybody can verify. We need to prove our atheist colleague that we do not make bad decisions believing that our company would reincarnate and get the money back - then, we need model, where we can be certain inwards, but we are not certain outwards; in this way, enlightened people do not talk so much. Enlightenment is not to impress others with what they cannot perceive or doing something outside the boundaries of their science - it's about uniting people and finding the common framework of actions and theories. So when you have such theory of limits, where you show why you see the ethical consequences pointing in directions, which are equal to what you would get if they point to infinity - you get rid of something philosophical, where even you can doubt a little bit, and you reach a theory, which can be verified by more people. For yourself, the "hypothesis" of afterlife might have further clarification, and you are free to have some free time to play hockey or meditate for your afterlife experience, but when you go to atheist company and start working with their afterlife full-time, you are being insane. When your words take this as certain, which they don't see, you are not doing any good ..and, finally - when you prove your own past and future lives, you cannot prove that they are not different; for example I did read a Christian text that he thinks it's very unethical to have afterlives instead of going straight to heaven - I think the potential of humans is quite free and when they have such impression of the ethics and reality, it could be their reality. Maybe someone, really, has proven that they do not have afterlife - then you are lying to them. You need to remember their past and future lives as well ..but I heard an argument that if you do not remember your past life, you are a different person living only one life - if your model is such, then in these terms you don't have an afterlife. So to be scientific, we consider all this and reach ethics, which fit to everybody, and some general sense about what you mean by basing your ethical decision, or important business decision, on theory of afterlife - some people might not want to risk with this, and they might be right in some sense of how they model their lives, who they are, and what makes you the same person. Maybe they lose motivation if they think they will do this next life? There might appear ethical considerations, which are not exactly "scientific", like believing something would make them lost and mad, not able to benefit from their models. For some people, when they lose faith in their lives and choose a different life, this is afterlife - they are interested if the consequence of past life reaches this, a new circle of friends, a new girlfriend or a new company they work in. For some people, when million years later they family gene creates the exact same combination, the same person is born and this is their afterlife; they want to know, what consequence this person would have from their lives, and are they creating memories, somehow, of their past person. For some people, they live on when their children survive, or their scientific work remains - their karma would go on.

Philosophy and science is about working to have less assumptions. What you mean by God, Heaven or Afterlife - a good theory, which you can scientifically check, is communicative between people, and free of assumptions. There is a magic - the theory of ethics and logic give the same results again and again, in different realms, areas of science etc.; with everything, you can see the moving energy, the good and bad behavior, and the shared karma; from many different theories, which form on different solutions to open problems - you still reach the conclusion that ethical life is good and benefits you or the world. You reach this in different ways and means. You also reach logic - that you can create the best reality, but the consequence of future, or the others, or how you relate with your past, is not good; logic breaks some rules of the simplest good will, demanding something practical, for example giving money away is good by ethics, but you might lose it by logic. Rising into highest heaven possible is good by ethics, but working in hells to help others is possibly important solution by logic and reason.

Cause and effect and acausal - do not get wrong impression about what I said. I have this connection:

• Cause and effect bring us closer to truth in manifested form, material realm, like material paradise / heaven on earth, or actual God in our real lives, our connection to God - in every religion you can see the past is worse and the future is better. This happens by evolution and experience. In the cause and effect, the Truth is so much more True in the Future that you would not see it in the past; the past gods like Odin and Thor - they seem like semigods, but those people could not manage better; it's weird if they went to Heaven, where they had their own best traits and not yours - but really, you do not create into heaven or hell, but in all means, in current life, afterlives and what you give to your future generations, you are moving towards the realm you create; their heaven was the world they created and they could not do better. They definitely met there the God they created themselves, or the God had the appearance, which did fit those people and their understanding.
• Acausal appears in Enlightened states of Mind, between two lives, or as the reality of Truth, which still has effect - this exists and sometimes it shows us the perfect harmony and reason; but sometimes it shows this also in our past experiences of hardship we overcame. God promised us the Paradise and the Kingdom of God for the future - we are evolving, or God is evolving, this is the philosophical question, but the real thing is that the past appears almost as if God was not there. Definitely, very enlightened experiences sometimes appeared, visions, feelings and moments of the Final Future, and maybe some people were able to materialize this into their lives.

I call this yin and yang - yang is acausal, where yin is causal. You can see questions like "why spiritual God created material world", and in Kybalion it's also hard to explain the material life. I have really hard to read texts about this yin and yang - https://spireason.neocities.org/ - where I prove that the material world exists and is evolving from past to future. Buddha said we are working for enlightenment of all beings, and Christ said one day we have the collective enlightenment.

[Davino]

@tvaeli I'll maybe post a longer answer, but in short:

You are intelligent but you lack mystical experiences. The correct things you say are due to your intelligence and what you have been able to decipher from second hand experience. You wouldn't be able to generate that body of knowledge from your own consciousness because you have not Awaken enough for that. You are strong in the intelligence side, you need to invest your coins on having mystical experiences and a change in your state of consciousness. Nothing can substitute an Awakening.

Once you get in tune with your inner Self, with consciousness, with Reality, then your vivid intelligence will make sense of it and in ultimate instance, God will answer all your questions in a flash of Infinity.

[Razard86]

3 hours ago, tvaeli said:

Gödels proof, for me, mostly proves that scientific theories can be both valid and contradictionary - I also result this conclusion from theory of Paradigms. This results that in scientific theories, we can not easily "debunk" people, but there needs to be ethics - models, which fit different people, can be most efficient for them - simple and explanationary -, but when we look them directly, there seem to be contradictions.

The existence of God is not so simple - when you awaken, yes, you can prove there is God and you are both part and a whole. But when you fall more asleep, you can prove there is no God and you are not whole at all, maybe you are not even a part, but you don't matter at all. When you seek independence or do not create karmic bonds, but break all of them - God cannot help you, but leaves your life. This can happen for good - you take responsibility and become more independent, until you reach God again in independent way - or for bad - your karma simply breaks up; in this case life forces you to repair your karma. In quantum reality, you shift between heavens, hells and more neutral states like Earth - they form complete realities. In reality, where you do not have karmic connection with God, you link with people, who do not have this; enlightened people can not do visible miracles near you - they become easily debunked - and you cannot see or access the good karmic connection; your karma is either completely neutral or bad. You might build an atheist life, which is quite successful, but without karmic connection to God. These realities are real - when you quantum shift, you move to other, very real, and complete reality, which surrounds you everywhere, nobody can do anything miraculous you can see - it's either out of your perception, or simply impossible; people, who want to impress you with miracles, simply lose their abilities until they fix their karma. In this quantum realm, God really does not exist, and it's insane to suggest that he does - the only model, which works for you, is without God. You can still believe in God of some kind. This makes God highly subjective. God is beyond existing and unexisting, it's beyond being one or many, beyond being true or false - Buddha never told whether God exists, but he said it's a very complicated topic and you reach this as you experience. Your quantum world contains God and you can see it's true ..but it's your reality! You can live a life, where you do everything yourself, and you can never give back to the world, when God helps you - you reach the reality, where God does not exist. You can change your religion, and God would appear differently, or the time passes and in new culture, the God also appears to be higher, he has higher manifestation - in this sense, you cannot say whether God is one or many, and you cannot say definitely that he is not getting better in material, manifested reality you see. When you get much higher - you can be sure, God as you see him would simply do the same, and it would be kind of different God; he cannot help you in ways, which you cannot answer at all. There is something permanent, already enlightened about God - but also you, in some sense you are already perfect and enlightened, but in the material world you can see yourself evolving and hardly reaching this, those experiences come and go as the day and night are changing (jewish religion says day and night are changing forever). You have to see that your quantum shifts take you to another, complete reality, and the theorems there are different - by some kind of synchronicity, those worlds can co-exist in the same place. Religions learn from God, but then they have wars between each others, it's hard for God to be the same. From perspective of the world, where God does not exist, you can still have some understanding of God when you consider it's attributes - you can describe the reality in terms of appearance of God's attributes and the benefits you get when you work for those. From perspective of the world, where God does exist, you can see that when you don't follow him at all, he disappears and kind of does not exist. And, another enlightened perspective sees your mind as the whole, but it does not attribute so much to the God - it says it's your own world and you get what you create; this seems distinct theory, but it's as good as others to describe something real about the deep, underlying reality. This topic is philosophically deep and when only what you know for sure is left, and when your theory fits everybody - you are left with something, which is not so simple as binary logic.

The same way, God treats everybody and everything equally, thus the same causes have the same effects - this creates appearance of the natural laws, which do not need to be explained by God. Natural Laws, they still form some union, which can be called God. When you study this evidence of the material world, you also study God; and in theory, you need this word to transcend the need to be sure, whether God exists - the attributes of God, in reality, like appearance of Truth, all exist anyway, and you benefit from them, thus they exist in sense that when you work for them, they work for you and exist; God, if he exist, would also leave you if you do not have the karmic connection - thus, if God exists, you get the same theory that he is what you create. So the theory is also that you create your own reality, and this is an aspect you can follow without "believing in God".

You can apply logic to the parts and the whole.

For example, you can assume that when all the parts do better, unless they harm others by doing better, then the whole also does better. You can do better by harming others, but you can do better by helping others. The whole benefits, when you do better by helping others (who deserve it?). Finally, when they do not deserve, they finally lose if you give them what they do not deserve - so, maybe you still help them by not giving what they do not deserve, but helping them further in deeper ways. But some people want to be independent and not get your help, and you could think that they do better if you help them - but they say they have right to not be your friend, then, painfully, you reach that you get better karma by not being their friend, and you are kind of dependent yourself when you constantly try to still create the friendship. Now, you know that when you create these win-win situations, you also create something for the whole - when you create lose-lose and win-lose situations, the whole would benefit less. Then, you can conclude that what Christ said that you help God and God helps you when you help others - this must be true by several possible models of what God is. Then, you have proven this and your study of Bible is a little bit more scientific - you can see that if God is born as a person, he would definitely tell this to you; you cannot see from here, whether Christ was God, sent by God, or a person with Godly character, but you can see that the story that if God is born he would tell you this and exactly this - it's true. You can show this theory to an atheist, and he would agree that parts help the whole this way, and with certain attributes of the whole you can see the force of God, the love of God, and the Wisdom and Truth of God in this way; so he might not believe in God as separate living entity, for example, or he might not believe in God in some other sense, but he would believe that by creating such model and following it this way, you are following something he could also prove in the material world - when people all apply the win-win situations, the godlike force appears in their life, and it's true that the Paradise would come to Earth as we get better in this. Heaven is a world you enjoy, and an atheists all use this term easily - when they get good marriage, good job and good friends, they can agree that they are in Heaven, even if they do not believe in everything you can say about lokas and heavens.

Also, the life after death. In Buddhism, Christianity and older religions, the good deeds have consequence beyond the realm you are living in, beyond your current life. This is extremely painful statement for an atheist and he would see you are deceived to something. But, philosophically, we can show that by transcending our ethics to limits, to infinity beyond the visible results of the ethical theory - limit in mathematical sense is a function of unconstrained continuity; and when we also consider the future generations and others people, we also get something like good karma beyond our visible life. The consequences of all kinds appear, come into our lives, which we cannot directly follow that good comes from the good. When we take all those hypothesis together, we can create a neutral theory, which considers the afterlife, but gives us a model, which is quite much identical not depending, whether this exists - we can show that we lose nothing by having an afterlife model. This is more scientific by removing the doubt - where we can doubt, we have a theory, which considers all the possibilities and creates the same model of actual life. Why it's more scientific - it might be not more scientific for some people, who have memories of past lives or strong visions of future lives, or both. But science is not the force of solitude, but a force of collective - we need to speak about it. When we speak, we consider not only our own perspective, experience, wisdom or need to believe something, but we consider also others; we look for common language, which everybody can verify. We need to prove our atheist colleague that we do not make bad decisions believing that our company would reincarnate and get the money back - then, we need model, where we can be certain inwards, but we are not certain outwards; in this way, enlightened people do not talk so much. Enlightenment is not to impress others with what they cannot perceive or doing something outside the boundaries of their science - it's about uniting people and finding the common framework of actions and theories. So when you have such theory of limits, where you show why you see the ethical consequences pointing in directions, which are equal to what you would get if they point to infinity - you get rid of something philosophical, where even you can doubt a little bit, and you reach a theory, which can be verified by more people. For yourself, the "hypothesis" of afterlife might have further clarification, and you are free to have some free time to play hockey or meditate for your afterlife experience, but when you go to atheist company and start working with their afterlife full-time, you are being insane. When your words take this as certain, which they don't see, you are not doing any good ..and, finally - when you prove your own past and future lives, you cannot prove that they are not different; for example I did read a Christian text that he thinks it's very unethical to have afterlives instead of going straight to heaven - I think the potential of humans is quite free and when they have such impression of the ethics and reality, it could be their reality. Maybe someone, really, has proven that they do not have afterlife - then you are lying to them. You need to remember their past and future lives as well ..but I heard an argument that if you do not remember your past life, you are a different person living only one life - if your model is such, then in these terms you don't have an afterlife. So to be scientific, we consider all this and reach ethics, which fit to everybody, and some general sense about what you mean by basing your ethical decision, or important business decision, on theory of afterlife - some people might not want to risk with this, and they might be right in some sense of how they model their lives, who they are, and what makes you the same person. Maybe they lose motivation if they think they will do this next life? There might appear ethical considerations, which are not exactly "scientific", like believing something would make them lost and mad, not able to benefit from their models. For some people, when they lose faith in their lives and choose a different life, this is afterlife - they are interested if the consequence of past life reaches this, a new circle of friends, a new girlfriend or a new company they work in. For some people, when million years later they family gene creates the exact same combination, the same person is born and this is their afterlife; they want to know, what consequence this person would have from their lives, and are they creating memories, somehow, of their past person. For some people, they live on when their children survive, or their scientific work remains - their karma would go on.

Philosophy and science is about working to have less assumptions. What you mean by God, Heaven or Afterlife - a good theory, which you can scientifically check, is communicative between people, and free of assumptions. There is a magic - the theory of ethics and logic give the same results again and again, in different realms, areas of science etc.; with everything, you can see the moving energy, the good and bad behavior, and the shared karma; from many different theories, which form on different solutions to open problems - you still reach the conclusion that ethical life is good and benefits you or the world. You reach this in different ways and means. You also reach logic - that you can create the best reality, but the consequence of future, or the others, or how you relate with your past, is not good; logic breaks some rules of the simplest good will, demanding something practical, for example giving money away is good by ethics, but you might lose it by logic. Rising into highest heaven possible is good by ethics, but working in hells to help others is possibly important solution by logic and reason.

Cause and effect and acausal - do not get wrong impression about what I said. I have this connection:

• Cause and effect bring us closer to truth in manifested form, material realm, like material paradise / heaven on earth, or actual God in our real lives, our connection to God - in every religion you can see the past is worse and the future is better. This happens by evolution and experience. In the cause and effect, the Truth is so much more True in the Future that you would not see it in the past; the past gods like Odin and Thor - they seem like semigods, but those people could not manage better; it's weird if they went to Heaven, where they had their own best traits and not yours - but really, you do not create into heaven or hell, but in all means, in current life, afterlives and what you give to your future generations, you are moving towards the realm you create; their heaven was the world they created and they could not do better. They definitely met there the God they created themselves, or the God had the appearance, which did fit those people and their understanding.
• Acausal appears in Enlightened states of Mind, between two lives, or as the reality of Truth, which still has effect - this exists and sometimes it shows us the perfect harmony and reason; but sometimes it shows this also in our past experiences of hardship we overcame. God promised us the Paradise and the Kingdom of God for the future - we are evolving, or God is evolving, this is the philosophical question, but the real thing is that the past appears almost as if God was not there. Definitely, very enlightened experiences sometimes appeared, visions, feelings and moments of the Final Future, and maybe some people were able to materialize this into their lives.

I call this yin and yang - yang is acausal, where yin is causal. You can see questions like "why spiritual God created material world", and in Kybalion it's also hard to explain the material life. I have really hard to read texts about this yin and yang - https://spireason.neocities.org/ - where I prove that the material world exists and is evolving from past to future. Buddha said we are working for enlightenment of all beings, and Christ said one day we have the collective enlightenment.

Your post is very long. You need to learn how to shorten your responses more. 

What you don't understand is all cause and effect is illusion, is delusion, is imaginary. Everything right now is a dream, it has no substance to it at all. One mystical experience will completely shatter all that you just wrote. Why? Because everything at its core is meaningless. Because it is made up that which doe not appear.

In short, there is only the BLANK, and the delusion is that which appears within the blank. If everything is blank, then all knowledge, all appearance, is completely arbitrary. The existence of Order and consistency is an expression of the BLANK intelligence. Because if it didn't create order, it couldn't create a convincing enough appearance to IMMERSE itself. What we call real is just a constructed consistent immersive appearance.

A Mystical appearance will shatter the consistency, RAISE the immersion, and destroy the appearance. Through this process it will reveal, that NONSENSE, PARADOX, is the ONE TRUTH, and this is the insight into what Infinity is.

[Davino]

5 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Great post!!! The only gripe I have is the proof argument. Verification is proof. When you awaken you prove to yourself that there is a God, and if you awaken further you prove you are both the part and the whole. So the part can prove it is the whole, but it can only prove it to itself because it is itself. 

I like what you are saying. But I wouldn't call that proof, because for me proof is a formal notion. I would call that revelation

[tvaeli]

16 hours ago, Davino said:

@tvaeli I'll maybe post a longer answer, but in short:

You are intelligent but you lack mystical experiences. The correct things you say are due to your intelligence and what you have been able to decipher from second hand experience. You wouldn't be able to generate that body of knowledge from your own consciousness because you have not Awaken enough for that. You are strong in the intelligence side, you need to invest your coins on having mystical experiences and a change in your state of consciousness. Nothing can substitute an Awakening.

Once you get in tune with your inner Self, with consciousness, with Reality, then your vivid intelligence will make sense of it and in ultimate instance, God will answer all your questions in a flash of Infinity.

I have to disappoint you - I have a lot of mystical experience. In my case, the two are not opposites; this post is about a very intellectual topic - being Scientific about God, and for this topic, reliance on mystical experience would not be beneficial. I also have a lot of scientific experience.

I have got a lots of wisdom in short time; but science is communicative tool - others would not always have anything to do with this experience. It's hard to answer, why I look for this scientific reality - you are very skeptical about this ..but shortly, it's bad when the material senses interfere with spiritual senses - each sense needs to come to conclusions from it's own data. To be an integrated whole, one also needs to develop an intellectual wisdom from their five senses and ability to think; this is a very communicative wisdom.

[tvaeli]

14 hours ago, Davino said:

I like what you are saying. But I wouldn't call that proof, because for me proof is a formal notion. I would call that revelation

Yes revelation is a kind of proof, but it's quite personal. When many people would get revelations, they would create proofs based on that - but in our common speech, it's very important that decisions of people with very different sense abilities, truth perceptions, IQ's would understand them about the same way. When we have common notations for our basic points, we meet much less counteractivities - the revelations you get from your spiritual advancements are often misunderstood and suppressed by other people.

[tvaeli]

18 hours ago, Razard86 said:

Your post is very long. You need to learn how to shorten your responses more. 

What you don't understand is all cause and effect is illusion, is delusion, is imaginary. Everything right now is a dream, it has no substance to it at all. One mystical experience will completely shatter all that you just wrote. Why? Because everything at its core is meaningless. Because it is made up that which doe not appear.

In short, there is only the BLANK, and the delusion is that which appears within the blank. If everything is blank, then all knowledge, all appearance, is completely arbitrary. The existence of Order and consistency is an expression of the BLANK intelligence. Because if it didn't create order, it couldn't create a convincing enough appearance to IMMERSE itself. What we call real is just a constructed consistent immersive appearance.

A Mystical appearance will shatter the consistency, RAISE the immersion, and destroy the appearance. Through this process it will reveal, that NONSENSE, PARADOX, is the ONE TRUTH, and this is the insight into what Infinity is.

I tried to answer every part of your inquiry. Maybe my answers were too long.

You cannot convince me. I think you are looking only at one side of the Truth; and as a Buddhist I also must believe in Cause and Effect, the Law of Karma.

I think your position is what is working for a while - it's the complete Yang situation, where you only want to experience the Good. In Taoist teachings, the extreme of Yang will, at some moment, at it's peak, break down.

I believe in Positive and Negative. The Positive - this is like what you said, it's creation of our own reality quite freely. The Negative, or the Reason, is very far, but it will eventually break in - in addition to ethics, which is similar to yours, there is logic and deduction.

Witches create their own reality, when they are not very advanced. They try to persuade people into fit of their own dream. Finally, they do something like negative witchcraft - they do not make sure that the energy others are spending to their goods would flow back to them. The positive witchcraft is more like what we experience in religion like Buddhism - you bring together the positive cycles of energy, and then, for others it's also useful to create your own dream. Somewhere there is a karmic connection that they, too, need to create positive karma and their dreams out of being your dream. Then it all works together - people co-create.

Your theory is prone to the effect, where you create and create your dream, but suddenly the people involved start lacking something. Then, what you would have created as positive energy, so that when people follow the Force they also fulfill your dream, would turn into the manipulation - you give them the karmic ends to do your dream, but suddenly that karma lacks the energy. Energy is very real.

In the big picture, we are not only beings of the Heavens, but we need to go to the Hells and help those beings to also achieve higher states; otherwise, one day they come anyway. You can help them if they accept this. This is more like Christianity than Buddhism, or it's a Mahayana Buddhism also, where you stay in lower realms and help them to get more enlightened. There is a hard fact, which somewhere meets your dream.

[tvaeli]

19 hours ago, Davino said:

@tvaeli I'll maybe post a longer answer, but in short:

You are intelligent but you lack mystical experiences. The correct things you say are due to your intelligence and what you have been able to decipher from second hand experience. You wouldn't be able to generate that body of knowledge from your own consciousness because you have not Awaken enough for that. You are strong in the intelligence side, you need to invest your coins on having mystical experiences and a change in your state of consciousness. Nothing can substitute an Awakening.

Once you get in tune with your inner Self, with consciousness, with Reality, then your vivid intelligence will make sense of it and in ultimate instance, God will answer all your questions in a flash of Infinity.

I gave a second thought to your post.

I have been accused to be more intellectual and think, before. I am a very spiritual and mystical, in a way, but a very rational person. You cannot completely convince me that materialist theories are wrong.

I give you some reasons for intelligence - I also discussed this matter in https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/101247-east-and-west-meaning-of-meditation-enlightenment-and-superpower/#comment-1462178:

• Intellectual thought is more shared, collective thing. People do not need a special preparation to understand such words.
• Intellectual thought is hardly wrong. Once you do all the philosophy and remove the parts you are not sure in, you cannot fail with this.
• By trusting your senses only, you do not verify the fact and you can shift slightly off the reality.

I have solved, in me, the contradiction between intellectual and mental. I am both, and fully - I do not easily pretend to break the laws of physics or make the claims of a top scientist false, and I respect also the simpler materialist models as some people can live with them; I also do not see the contradiction with science in spiritual things - rather, I see they sometimes have narrow models, which would have to be developed to fit the scientific thought, but I respect the spiritual people with simple models, and when I sense some sounds of it as kind of nonsense, or I see they would not get the advantage of sciences, I see people can live with such theories and there is some important core of Truth, so I validate this and create more neutral models, which have less contradictions. These are different people and they live in different ways.

I think the Intellectual, Collective education of the West has won people in wars, who did not have this kind of reasoning. The reasoning, intellectual thought is a superpower and even intellectual materialist is able to create so strong civilizations that people, who only believe in mystics and karma, would be beaten, because they do the mistake of being irrational and leaving karmic ends, which suddenly turn into bad karma like undeveloped witchcraft. People, who lack intellectual thought, can be manipulative - they do the reactions, which make others to give them something and make moves they want, but then they have not connected the karmic ends of those reactions, which would make others to benefit from this. This is the essence of witchcraft - you learn the reactions, which make people to move, and you use them to "control" the people and the situations, but suddenly it turns out you did not meet their reasons to move in this way, and they must work hard to change their habits; in the end, the witchcraft does not work - the karmic circle will not go together, it will not create a substancial benefit. People need to be more and more deep and intelligent with their behaviors - so that they are "moved" by people, who have really made the ends fit, and who does not see this as control. Psychological theories can be used to create witchcraft, but those things have very serious ends, when it turns out you have used subconscious lies, and people take serious efforts to fix their subconscious mind and make you unable to continue your witchcraft.

Scientific thought, the intellectual culture, is somehow so strong to get over witchcraft in yourself and others. It connects the negative reasons, causes and effects, karmic processes in the ends, where people must get their part of the benefit, when they move like your signals would suggest them to move. It raises the level of independence, is suitable for many different people, who do not have some psychic, mental, intellectual superpowers, and replaces the control and manipulate strategies with free cooperation with creativity and synchronicity.

These are completely different superpowers, but I must conclude: people on the level of Buddha are really able to connect their karmic ends, and Buddhists tend to be really sane, but they spend enornomous amount of energy to achieve this; for intelligent people, who also practice the reason, avoidance of effects of witchcraft, subconscious manipulation of people and materials, is systematic and automatic. For Buddhist, civilization is built if very aware thought exists, but west adds this intellectual, shared and communicative thought, which builds civilized world more or less automatically - a civilized person is more or less completely safe from witchcraft, even if they are atheist, materialist, and having no "special powers" of similar kind. They can avoid cults, manipulation, people in need of unreasonable control, etc. They do not easily buy fake products or follow fake teachers. All these nightmares start appearing, when you go too pure with your mentality, making your mind very pure dream - the logical ends exist in any dream and they break it. The Buddhism contains many safe thoughts to achieve lifestyle, which is also good for these practical ends, and Christians are also very practical - but when you take the best things you can find in spirituality and religion, and make your mind purely yang, purely positive, it's like going to party every day and forgetting the job - suddenly, you have to pay.