*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - (Origin of quote is unconfirmed; yet, is widely attributed to Louis Pasteur, Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Wow man, this guy is bloody brilliant, and is seeing things as they are and with an open mind. Isn't it fun how much more there is to all of this... if one is truly observing and absorbing the world around them do they not see the nature of things? Let biases and fears drop aside and see what can be seen.
They were already asking ‘how could creation/existence arise from nothing? How could the complexity we see come to be from a beginning without it?’ From there they imagined a system of increasing complexity from the beginning or nothing. Everybody knew smaller things made bigger things. It is interesting in a way how well it lines up, but imagining a system of levels of increasing complexity that lines up with what they can see doesn’t seem like a deeply mystical insight, just applying rules of what we see to everything.
8:44 I read all these mystical books my grandmother had when I was like 4/5. I was also watching PBS apparently quantum mechanics and I’ve been to every church for Sunday School (free adult supervision) so I’ve just been trying to figure out…. Who’s telling the truth? I’ve been told, seen, felt, heard and read lots of things - and then my imagination or gaslighted conditioning has indeed made me a little insane and I appreciate everyone’s efforts in helping me sort myself out. ✌🏼
Have any of these ways of thinking taught things that contradict each other? Does QM say that people don’t have mystical experiences, or does the Bible say that electromagnetism doesn’t exist? “He that sayeth the electron when passing a screen of two slits createth a pattern of interference shall be stoned to death!” None of our physics theories say how the universe was actually created, and even if we have some theory proven that says the universe started in the Big Bang, or has existed forever, it won’t say why this is so. If you want to believe the Big Bang was created by god and was a physical manifestation of ‘let there be light’ go for it. No discovery in science will ever tell you you’re wrong. The only situations in which religious claims and scientific claims potentially clash are where there are explicit contradictions, such as claims about the world in the Bible that are taken literally. Firstly academic Christian theology has always subscribed to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, for over a thousands years literalism has been considered fringe nonsense in academic Christian theological terms. Secondly it’s not so much that literalism contradicts science as such. Firstly it contradicts itself, the Bible is full of contradictory factual claims before we get anywhere near contradictions with actual reality. This is why serious students of the Bible interpret it allegorically, because that renders such contradiction immaterial. The only conflict with ‘science’ is because science is an approach for studying reality. The Bible doesn’t say anything against the actual process or techniques of science, it just claims facts about the world. It’s not the fault of the scientific method, or even scientists, if when we look at the actual world such religious claims turn out to be false. Literalism needs to get to grips with reality, not ‘science’. It’s like declaring a microscope blasphemous because it shows you things that contradict your religion. It’s not the microscope’s fault.
Great summary of Neil’s insights. At the end of the day though, I think the choice of whether you assign the underlying “am-ness” and the finely-tuned processes to a will, will remain a choice. I think the ability to prove an omniscient will, will forever be out of reach thereby keeping faith as “leap”. I think you have to want it to be true on top of it being plausible.
I agree completely. One has to choose religion. Religion does not displace science, it provides texture and perhaps personal meaning. One thing that often disappoints on this channel is the dismissive attitude displayed by so scientists. Many of whom are flat colourless people. The nerds at the party. Those who are both scientists and religious philosophers are much more interesting.
@@ronhudson3730 I think it’s upsetting to some to think that some things are inherently non-provable. Even if you established all the underlying non-physical rules that govern all of space and time, the fact that there is a system requirement for those rules to be in tune with each other in order for a universe to maintain its head above the reality waterline still doesn’t answer why the rules exists in the first place. Rules allow things to exist in time. Why does time even have to exist? It’s a dead end, non-resolvable, proof I think. We’ll at least the magnificence of our universe keeps us busy while we search for truth and meaning and gives us a direction.
'Ever question is worth of investigation.' I agree with that generally, as long as you understand that some questions are answered by saying 'This is a nonsense question', and demonstrating why.
Everything we experience is due to agreement with every atom it's answers are so well protected has to be a reasonable explanation that we aren't supposed to know time doesn't exist
They have to "think" different. Science and Religion are both each ways of "self-alienation", explained with Nietzsche. In both the (uncatchable) subject of knowledge and living entity places itself in a specific way next to itself, steps each in a very specific way next to itself, in order to intervene on itself, for reasons of self-transformation and self-realization, or with Nietzsche short: "for growth!" In science the "law-maker" subtracts itself to get the "isolated laws"; in religion it places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"!
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This means that individuals give more weight to evidence that reinforces their beliefs and dismiss evidence that contradicts them. This can result in a skewed understanding or perception of facts, events, or data.
Emptiness is the baseline of perception, and the baseline of physical reality. Imbalances in quantum foam lead to particle formation, imbalances in baseline perception create qualia from emptiness. Perception is clear until it becomes qualia, the void is clear until it emanates away from baseline. Machines and detectors we build are composed of qualia, they simply report further qualia. All this is due to being, the perception, which the universe appears in. The universe has the same dynamics as a dream. As in a dream, necessarily, observably and logically unavoidably, every creature is equally the co-creator of it. Not merely composed of or by, but IS. Radical ontological equality and oneness is found in this understanding.
So, there is some overlap between the subjective and the objective. There are also wildly differing elements. Institutional religion and spirituality are similarly related. Institutions deviate from pure spirituality and seek to validate their nature by pointing at the spirituality they associate with. Structures of power over the masses and the nature of being have been cleverly bundled. This is vastly different from the similarities found between spirituality and science.
My understanding for why science and religion think differently is quite different. Both ideologies stem from *core beliefs.* *Religion:* If you are someone who believes that there is meaning and purpose embedded within existence, then you will gravitate towards religion. And when you push the logical limits of conceivability regarding religion, you end up with an infinitely existing, totally ubiquitous God for which nothing is greater. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this point. *Science:* If you are someone who believes that existence is totally void of any meaning and purpose, then you will gravitate towards science. And when you push the logical limits of conceivability regarding science, you end up with an infinitely existing, totally ubiquitous Multiverse for which nothing is greater. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this point. And what is the commonality between the two? ... *Testing the limits of conceivability!*
Walter Russell, from mysterious to mystical, somehow did it for me, meaning his theories assimilated a cohesive and coherent worldview, a wholesome awareness of reality by removing the disjointedness among Easter and Western thought, cosmologically from GTR to the quantum, so called esoteric to the pragmatic.
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation The process of creation starts with thought - an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought. This is true of the universe as well. Thought is the first level of creation. Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact. Words are the second level of creation. Next comes action. Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything. The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced. Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you. I am? It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that. All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you. The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it. To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you. My God, this is unbelievable. Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed. Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"! One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing. Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now. This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this. When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination. And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways. Please? You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality. You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process. This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process. This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created. I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life. Okay. Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there." Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all. This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe. Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up? Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same. They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you. I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy) We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter. Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love. This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth. There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
I agree with Neil Theise's suggestion that Robert Kuhn try mediation. I wonder if he has? If someone is interested in consciousness but doesn't have an active contemplative practice (every culture has them) then what the heck are ya doing? There's a big difference between intellectual understanding and experiential knowing. I've heard Kuhn basically dismiss the latter many times as mere brain activity that you can't trust, which makes me suspect he doesn't actually know what it feels like. What if consciousness can only be understood from inside one’s own conscious mind? (and it doesn't take 5 years of diligent practice, as Theise suggests) I like this channel but sometimes wonder if Kuhn's mind is truly open
Robert says he believes in some form of Cosmic Tropism. Is Evolution moving in the direction of greater complexity? Geosphere- Biosphere - Noosphere. Teillhard De Chardin.
I like this guy Neil Theise. Also, where is the proof that virtual particles exist? Where is the proof that some of these virtual particles do not self annulate?
❤🎉🎯💯⚡👌I was speechless so I looked for emojies and I'm running out of them now. Simply brilliant and to my own experience also true. Robert's face expression was very relaxed and fascinated and almost serene... Is that a coincidence? 😉
Divine Dichotomy - Conversation With God It's important to learn about Divine Dichotomy and understand it thoroughly if you are to live in our universe with grace. Divine Dichotomy holds that it is possible for two apparently contradictory truths to exist simultaneously in the same space. Now on your planet people find this difficult to accept. They like to have order, and anything that does not fit into their picture is automatically rejected. For this reason, when two realities begin to assert themselves and they seem to contradict one another, the immediate assumption is that one of them must be wrong, false, untrue. It takes a great deal of maturity to see, and accept, that, in fact, they might both be true. Yet in the realm of the absolute - as opposed to the realm of the relative, in which you live - it is very clear that the one truth which is All There Is sometimes produces an affect which, viewed in relative terms, looks like a contradiction. This is called a Divine Dichotomy, and it is a very real part of the human experience. And as I've said, it's virtually impossible to live gracefully without accepting this. One is always grumbling, angry, thrashing about, vainly seeking "justice," or earnestly trying to reconcile opposing forces which were never meant to be reconciled, but which, by the very nature of the tension between them, produce exactly the desired effect. The realm of the relative is, in fact, held together by such tensions. As an example, the tension between good and evil. In ultimate reality there is no such thing as good and evil. In the realm of the absolute, all there is is love. Yet in the realm of the relative you have created the experience of what you "call" evil, and you have done it for a very sound reason. You wanted to experience love, not just "know" that love is All There Is, and you cannot experience something when there is nothing else but that. And so, you created in your reality (and continue to do so every day) a polarity of good and evil, thus using one so that you might experience the other. And here we have a Divine Dichotomy - two seemingly contradictory truths existing simultaneously in the same place. Specifically: There is such a thing as good and evil. All there is is love. Thank You for explaining this to me. You've touched on this before, but thank You for helping me understand Divine Dichotomy even better. You're welcome. Now, as I said, the greatest Divine Dichotomy is the one we are looking at now. There is only One Being, and hence, only One Soul. And, there are many souls in the One Being. Here's how the Dichotomy works: You've just had it explained to you that there is no separation between souls. The soul is the energy of life that exists within and around (as the aura of) all physical objects. In a sense, it is that which is "holding" all physical objects in place. The "Soul of God" holds in the universe, the "soul of man" holds in each individual human body. The body is not a container, a "housing," for the soul; the soul is the container for the body. That's right. Yet there is no "dividing line" between souls - there is no place where "one soul" ends and "another" begins. And so, it is really one soul holding all bodies. Correct. Yet the one soul "feels like" a bunch of individual souls. Indeed it does - indeed I do - by design. Can You explain how it works? Yes. While there is no actual separation between souls, it is true that the stuff of which the One Soul is made manifest in physical reality at different speeds, producing different degrees of density. Different speeds? When did speed come in? All of life is a vibration. That which you call life (you could just as easily call it God) is pure energy. That energy is vibrating constantly, always. It is moving in waves. The waves vibrate at different speeds, producing different degrees of density, or light. This, in turn, produces what you would call different "effects" in the physical world - actually, different physical objects. Yet while the objects are different and discreet, the energy which produces them is exactly the same. Let Me go back to the example that you used of the air between your living room and dining room. It was a good use of imagery that just popped right out of you. An inspiration. From guess where. Yes, I gave it to you. Now you said that there was no specific place between those two physical locations where the "air of the living room" stopped and the "air of the dining room" began. And that is true. Yet there is a place where the "air of the lining room" becomes less dense. That is,vit dissipates, becomes "thinner." So, too, the "air of the dining room." The further from the dining room you go, the less you smell diner! Now the air in the house is the same air. There is no "separate air" in the dining room. Yet the air in the dining room sure seems like "other air." For one thing, it smells different! So because the air has taken on different characteristics, it seems as though it is different air. But it is not. It is all the same air, seeming different. In the living room you smell the fireplace, in the dining room you smell dinner. You might even go into one room and say, "Whew, it's stuffy. Let's get some air in here," as if there was no air at all. And yet, of course, there's plenty of air. What you are wanting to do is change its characteristics. So you bring in some from the outside. Yet that is the same air, too. There is only one air, moving in, around, and through everything. This is cool. I totally "get" this. I love the way You explain the universe to me in ways I can totally "get." Well, thank you. I'm trying here. So let Me go on. Please. Like the air in your house, the energy of life - what we'll call the "Soul of God" - takes on different characteristics as it surrounds different physical objects. Indeed, that energy coalesced in a particular way to form those objects. As particles of energy join together to form physical matter, they become very concentrated. Mashed up. Pushed together. They begin to "look like," even "feel like," distinct units. That is, they begin to seem "separate," different," from all the other energy. Yet this is all the same energy, behaving differently. It is this very act of behaving differently which makes it possible for That Which Is All to manifest as That Which Is Many. As I explained in Book 1, That Which Is could not experience Itself as What It Is until It developed this ability to differentiate. So That Which Is All separated into That Which Is This, and That Which Is That. (I'm trying to make this very simple now.) The "clumps of energy" which coalesced into discreet units that held in physical beings are what you have chosen to call "souls." The parts of Me that have become the lot of You are what We are talking about here. Thus, the Divine Dichotomy: There is only One of us. There are Many of us. KNOW THE TRUTH - SET YOURSELF FREE. Now I tell you this: Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. There is no separation. Not from each other, not from God, and not from anything that is. This truth I will repeat over and over on these pages. This observation I will make again and again. Act as if you were separate from nothing, and no one, and you will heal your world tomorrow. This is the greatest secret of all time. It is the answer for which man has searched for millennia. It is the solution for which he has worked, the revelation for which he has prayed. Act as if you were separate from nothing, and you heal the world. Understand that it is about power with, not power over.
People believe they should fear their loving God and fear no other and will fight until death to keep that belief and pass it on. This is an ongoing bloodbath greater than all the sacrifices combined in Gods name.
4:51 energy, at the quantum level ,is somehow being converted into mass... or mass itself at that scale has different properties which could be very different from those of mass at our scale...
Kudos Lawrence for the closing questions. As to the answer, "what's the chance?" the chance is 100%. There is a 100% chance that some old poetry and navel gazing can be compared in some ways to some views of some modern scientific theories. In fact many. It's no surprise at all. It's a useless observation, but it does answer the question lol.
@@edwardtutman196 But there are many thousands of existing novel thoughts to draw upon. Pick a thing, and someone somewhere wrote something that can kind of be compared to it. Just Nostradamus alone lol. But it seems cooler and spooky and heavy, man, if it's obscure old religious texts.
The human brain excels at pattern matching, but unfortunately the perceived patterns are often just imagined, not real. So it's typically impossible to know whether a "science-consistent" modern interpretation of an old text really matches what the centuries-dead author had in mind. Even with living authors, their meaning is open to interpretation & misunderstanding.
It is very easy for a physicist to attack the spiritual paradigm with a physicalist type of philosophy, saying you are not appreciating the underpinned principles that theories need to be based on; blah blah blah... but I could just as easily attack the fitness routines of your average physicist, who is merely looking to supplement their lifestyle with some rigorous activity at the gym. As someone who has been a very good athlete, I could easily approach your endeavor with my own sense of criteria, saying "Hey if you do it this way you'll get better results, and your form is bad, and you need a strategy; you're combining conflicting dichotomies, if you do it one way or the other you'll get different benefits... 80% of your fitness routines is counteractive; look at me, blah blah blah... Spiritual virtue and scientific virtue are nowhere near the same aims. Trying rigorously to disprove your own theory is nothing like ego transcendence, and the most profound spiritual experience is not even considered an observation at all, by scientific standards. 😂 I suspect my own spiritual experiences may possibly be closer to truth than even the observational powers in the imagination of Dr. Lise Meitner (She is the first person to split the atom). It is in no way very obvious to me that science is even in pursuit of the truth to begin with. The senses that evolutionary fitness has developed in our species has very clear and obvious rules for risk an reward payoffs, and scientific industry is motivated by this very paradigm. Science does not survive by pursuing the truth.😂 Real spiritual practice is always about a dichotomy of being willing and able to relinquish the life in this world in order to be able to exchange this life for life in the prime reality.
What's the difference between history and geology? The difference between historical facts and scientific measurement? What's the difference between human actions and behavior and the actions and behavior of Nature? If you can't or won't see a difference between what controls human behavior and what controls the planets in their courses then are you ignorant or wise?
Science has many books and much new discoveries. Religion has some books that say this is this and that is that. And that's all. Nothing more nothing less.
Are they not two sides of the same coin? Religion proposes answers through metaphor and logical deduction. Science through postulation, experimentation and accepted conclusion. Neither can prove or disprove the existence of God as the prime-agent behind and the sustinance creation.
Come back and explain how religion uses "logical deduction" I am most familiar with the Christian religion so maybe I am missing something here from one of the other more logical religions.
@@readynowforever3676 yes... It's a long time though. Human beings should have evolved in this time with broader understanding of life and spirituality. Only a few people like Buddha , Shiva , Jesus or Zarathustra have touched higher consciousness. Otherwise humanity has only seen thousands and thousands of wars in the name of religion in the last 3000 years alone.
I don’t think religion is so much hallucinations, at least not at the start. I think it started as story telling. stories then cobbled together with the theme of an all powerful god and eventually real events. Honestly, who would believe the stories of creation/fall of man, Noah’s Ark, Moses and the Exodus if they weren’t part if the bible? My guess would be very few people.
First three lines of Genesis allege 'god' created light after creating Earth. Please read the verse in order. The Earth and Moon came into existence before the sun is dumm. The Earth or Moon cannot come into existence before the sun came into existence that makes logical sense. Human's ideas put into holy book can then claimed 'it came from 'god'". Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Science and religion dont always think differently. Dogma can also exist in science as much as it does in religion.... in which case the science goes out the window and then becomes scientism.
If it’s “dogma” then it’s not science. The scientific method develops or corrects the scientific repository. With religion, only a new interpretation comes about. A different “interpretation”, historically always meant-a new denomination. Ultimately, religion itself is just an interpretation postulation of an anthropic deity.
@@readynowforever3676 That's true-- if it's dogma, then it's not science. And yet there's all this dogma still floating around in science posing as science when it's actually scientism or religious nonsense. A throwback of the old ways of religious thinking - of tryring to defend certain assumptions or beliefs that have no actual scientific or empirical basis.
@@markb3786 There are plenty examples of dogmas still deeply entrenched in science today, in the scientific community., and in many theories. Do some research and stop with the denial. Denial will get you nowhere.
Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things. Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us. Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form. HOW CONSCIOUNESS CREATES REALITY? If God is Reality And if Reality Is Consciousness Then God Is Consciousness I Think therefore I Am God Consciousness The whole universe is one reality which is pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is absolute existence. God makes things through the direct act of becoming the things which He creates. In the beginning the One differentiated into the many. The One entered into the many and became the Self of each. The being within everything is the One. When you merge with this nonlocal Self, you become one with the Self of all that exists. The One is the Higher Self of all. You are the One. The God Spirit In Me Is The Same God Spirit In You, And The Spirit Of All Beings. Enlightenment Is The realization That You Are All Part Of The Universal Spirit Of All That Exists, Which Is GOD. Each of us is the universal spirit projecting a particular point of view. My Self is inseparable from all that exists, just as your self is inseparable from all that exists. You are an aspect of Infinite Intelligence, and Infinite Intelligence is the source of all that exists. Therefore you are the source of all that exists and you create your own experience. Everything is possible because everything exists within you. The same unbounded potential of the Infinite Spirit also resides in each and every one of us. Everything in the universe is consciousness. Space and time in all planes of reality are only projections within universal consciousness. There really is no here or there for everything is at one place where Mind is. Mind does not move at all. Mind simply is (Not to be confused with the brain). Mind is everywhere yet nowhere. Mind is nowhere but Here, Now. We are all existing together as a singularity in one place and time. Everything is one, Here and Now. Your soul is the reflection of all souls. You are the Other. Without the other, you would not exist. You are defined by your relationships with others. You would need to describe the whole universe in order to define a single person. Therefore every single person is the whole universe. Your soul is both personal and universal at the same time. Everyone is a reflection of yourself. You are in a hall of mirrors where every reflection of yourself appears different. Others you admire reflect the qualities you most cherish in yourself. Others you detest reflect the qualities you most deny in yourself. Each person you see is a different version of you. The outer world is a mirror of yourself at any place and time. If you want to know the state of your personal consciousness, just look around and see what is happening to you. If you want to know the state of the collective consciousness, just look around at what is happening in the world. Your personal reality is synchronistically orchestrated by your sense of Self at all times. If a critical mass of people expressed their higher selves, they would cause a transformation in collective consciousness and the world reality. Every time a person rises in personal consciousness, he moves the state of the world towards a higher one than before. TRANSCENDENT WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can experience all possibilities. Your awareness is open. You are connected to the source. Your consciousness is merged with the mind of God. SUBTLE WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can hold on to your vision. You trust yourself to follow where the mind goes. You aren't bound up in resistance, objections, skepticism, and rigid beliefs. Inspiration occurs as a normal part of your existence. MATERIAL WORLD: You are comfortable with your personal reality. You take responsibility for it. You read the world as a reflection of who you are and what is happening "in here." As the reflection shifts and changes, you track the changes occurring inside yourself. The Need to Create, Discover, and Explore. God becomes a creative source. He gave us our birthright of curiosity. He remains unknowable, but he unfolds one secret after another in creation. At the far edge of the universe, the unknown is a challenge and a source of wonder. God wants us not to worship but to evolve. Our role is to discover and explore. Nature exists to provide endless mysteries that challenge our intelligence - there is always more to discover. This is your God if you live to explore and be creative, if you feel happiest confronting the unknown, if you have total confidence that nature can be unraveled, including human nature, as long as we keep questioning and never settle for fixed, preordained truth. God becomes pure wonder. After reason has reached the limits of understanding, the mystery remains. Sages, saints, and the divinely inspired have penetrated it. They have felt a divine presence that transcends everyday life. Materialism is an illusion. Creation was fashioned in two layers, the visible and the invisible. Miracles become real when everything is a miracle. To reach God, one must accept the reality of invisible things. Nature is a mask for the divine. This is your God if you are a spiritual seeker. You want to know what lies behind the mask of materialism, to find the source of healing, to experience peace, and to be in direct contact with a divine presence. Unity, the State Beyond All Needs. God becomes One. There is complete fulfillment because you have reached the goal of seeking. You experience the divine everywhere. The last hint of separation has vanished. You have no need to divide saint from sinner, because God imbues everything. In this state, you don't know the truth; you become it. The universe and every event in it are expressions of a single underlying Being, which is pure awareness, pure intelligence, and pure creativity. Nature is the outward form that consciousness takes as it unfolds in time and space. This is your God if you feel totally connected to your soul and your source. Your consciousness has expanded to embrace a cosmic perspective. You see everything happening in the mind of God. The ecstasy of great mystics, who seem especially gifted or chosen, now becomes available to you, because you have fully matured spiritually. The God that brings the scheme to an end, God as One, is different from the others. He isn't a projection. He signifies a state of total certainty and wonder, and if you reach that state, you are no longer projecting. Every need has been fulfilled; the path has ended with reality itself.
It is interesting to examine how reality came into existence. Perhaps it is more important to think about why reality came into existence and our responsibility to ensure it serves its intended purpose.
@@bozo5632 , perhaps you could expand upon this first cut on the why. Think about the timeline of the universe. From initial creation to the present time. What is the most important development (at least to the human species)? I submit that the greatest achievement of reality is the emergence of intelligence. The question is: will we learn how to use it before we destroy the truly amazing world into which we find ourselves?
@@JustAThought01 Why reality exists and what's important from a human perspective don't seem like the same thing to me. It seems unlikely to me that the universe has an intended purpose, and even less likely that anyone would ever figure it out. But if it does have a purpose, it seems to revolve around hydrogen. Or if life is supposedly super important, despite being dwarfed by the abundance of intergalactic hydrogen plasma, then clearly it's about bacteria, or else beetles. I think what's important from the human perspective is stuff that's important from the human perspective. Food and water. Mating. Getting in the habit of always putting your keys in the same place. We're mammals, not transcendental beings.
@@bozo5632 , do you not rate knowledge as being of upmost importance? You mention food, water and remembering where you put your keys. These all revolve around knowledge which is the result of intelligence. Using our skill of intelligence to improve our individual lives would seem to be a good focus of the species. If the universe has no purpose then why does it exist? Seems like a great deal of effort and resource if no end point is expected. My thought: it is a good question to ponder.
I come across people who think of themselves as scientific who regurgitate what they have been told without question. This makes me think of people who would once say well the cardinal says such and such so it must be true. I am not so sure science and religion are so diferrent.
It brings us no closer to understanding the origens of life and the universe but people believe it does because of what they are told by scientists who say we know.@@readynowforever3676
Really? Or are these just your assumptions? Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of BS in religion, but is your description accurate enough to be true? What about a kind of science that ignores certain phenomena, because they do not fit its theoretical framework? What about religion based on experience? Let's imagine that science has it's limits. The obvious one is that it cannot study inner life directly (it started to change, but it's still a far cry from direct access). Religious experience is part of inner life. It may be nonsense, it may be real. How to test it? Deciding ad hoc what is true on theoretical grounds is not testing and it's not science.
Does this also mean the Creator has a supreme infinite power, where as the human interpretations of God is that which requires a thin screen of dark matter to see the maximum allowable interior of its grand ceiling? However, without the screen it is just insignificant or not worth pursuing an objective from a human perspective? Also different from the exercise of the poet from dream principles, whereby the ceiling or wall is not necessary and inherently unprovable... but even if the dreamer could detail the intricate designs it is obviously impossible to play it back in exact detail as it was first observed. Therefore the dreamer would need use a different combination of rules to catergorize its order in terms of its usefulness. Time and utility of the category shows up if the screen is a common observation feature of its interior to objective function 🤔 maybe? Personally I find different cultural interpretations of God have different light cone capabilities except fundamentally they all work together to assist whatever is needed to be understood in the time it is required if indeed the objective is still a node of a branch in that particular catergory.
If it wasn't for the greed of the Western world and the children of past presidents who are president after two or 3 generations, we all would have done more good and learn more about ourselves. So now, you will have to dig deep, yet will will not come close till you find the strength to step up discrimination and discrepancies.
Religion deals with the question of why anything exists at all and proposes intelligent design, science is limited in the fact that real science can only make predictions based on observations and since an intelligent designer exists outside of the universe science really can’t speak to why anything exists or an intelligent designer. It’s not rocket science.
@@brandonhodnett5420 : No, I'm not making that assumption. I'm agnostic about it due to a lack of a compelling argument about the origin of the universe... something that's hard to study because the evidence about it, and about the nature of time & space, is very limited. I infer by the context of your question that you are assuming there both was and still is a designer. Do you have a logical explanation for how a designer could have come into existence? (I'm not a fan of using "magical" or "circular" reasoning to fill in gaps in our understanding. so I hope your explanation doesn't require either of those.) I'll note that there appear to be three alternatives regarding the origin of the universe, whether or not there was a designer: (1) The universe could have always existed so its past is infinitely long, or (2) the universe could have had a beginning at some finite time in the past, or (3) time could loop so that the beginning of the universe is also in the future. Note 2: I'm busy and I'm not a cosmologist, so don't expect me to participate in this thread much longer.
Let's start here. In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. So in the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself - because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is...was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not. This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time. Now All That Is knew it was all there was - but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experiencially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not. Do you understand this? The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am. Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experiencially. This energy - this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy - chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within. It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if it thus simply divided Itself - becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither. Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there - but which must exist for here and there to exist. It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts. Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not - namely, everything that is not "nothing." But I Am All Things - seen and unseen - so this description of Me as the Great Unseen - the No-Thing, or Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct. Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there," God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this explosion from within, God created 'relativity' - the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later. From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything - a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang Theory. As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there - and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable. Just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, "relative" to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen. God knew that for love to exist - and to know itself as pure love - its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity - the absolute opposite of love - everything that love is not - what is now called fear. In the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced. It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth. Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil. This mythology has been mankind's early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive. In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists - both seen and unseen. In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits. In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that "God the Father" had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experience of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance - the sudden existence - of countless spirits in the "Kingdom of Heaven." In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality - for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring. My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole. This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the "image and likeness of God." This doesn't mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the "same stuff"! With all the same properties and abilities - including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.
What scientist can explain the origins of the universe (the big fart nonsense) and where did all life come from? For the big bang to happen you need the 4 forces of the universe to have existed before any big bang? So who made these laws? I'll give you the answer: The Mind of God Consciousness, the Mind of Infinite Space and All Space Is Vibrations of Energy, the Energy of the Human Mind of Consciousness.
Can you come with something more philosophically advanced and original than these sound-bites every low-level atheist knows and repeats? Something more challenging and exciting? Actual arguments based on solid assumptions?
9:09 because then you can discern where the pattern of creation (god) ends and you as a free will individual having a body/life experience before it’s over. My understanding of reincarnation is either you come back to help the slow learners or you are a slow learner. We’re in a black hole of spiritual remedial learning 😂
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. John 5:19 Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. John 8:28-29 Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him." John 8:42 Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:28 You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I. John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. John 5:30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me. John 10:29-30 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.' John 12:23-35 New International Version 23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me. 27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him. 30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up[a] from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die. 34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?” 35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going.
Is the multiverse falsifiable? Do you consider it to be a "scientific theory"? Calling all religion a "baseless fantasy" either demonstrates ignorance or a type of intellectual closemindedness, and either way it betrays the sort of rational thinking I am sure you pretend to posses.
@@Epiousios18 Anything that is not falsifiable is not science. The idea of a multiverse is, at the moment, a speculation at best; albeit, not completely baseless. As for your personal attacks, and your arrogant (and no doubt faith-based) assertions; well, that’s exactly what they are.
@@NothingMaster If the multiverse isn't "completely baseless" than neither is most developed religious thought. Simple as that. That also wasn't a personal attack, I was merely observing the fact that people who pretend that all religion is "baseless fantasy" are doing so out of ignorance or a form of closemindedness. Do you really think people like Newton, Leibniz, Bacon, or Maldacena didn't/don't have a good basis for their religious thought? Not saying you have to agree with the ideas, but taking the arrogant approach that it is all "baseless fantasy" is just that.
@@Epiousios18 Totally agree with your point. . Neither science nor religion is baseless.. They have solid ideologies.. Science is just a tool to study the world around us and within us both physical and non-physical... Religion contemplates about the world and strives to discover the truth in it's own way.. Both thoughts are valid and required.. I think these two are not in conflict.. with enough advancement both systems can prove each other's claims regarding what's behind everything - the nature of existence, consciousness and fundamentals of universe/multiverse etc... Science is still in its infancy.. if it can achieve so much with comparatively lesser tools, imagine what science can discover with few more centuries of continual advancement.. It can discover God and heavens..!! It's already on the right track.. Think future, far far ahead like centuries ahead and you will know science and religion do not conflict with each other... they meet at many points.. .. In other words, they make a lot of sense..
Evolution Could Never Happen at All The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity. This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception. No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18 The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this. Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw? Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19 This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present. From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits. Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale. Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20 The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism? The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21 Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true. Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22 Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion. The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that: Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23 A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says: Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24 It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion! Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25
The difference between science and religion is very obvious. Here is one example : When science found out how to explain lightning and thunder, they then concluded that there is no God, and that their Consciousness is a product of EXPLOSION of NOTHINGESS (BigBang)... very funny... While faithfuls just believe that their Consciousness could have possibly originated from a Conscious SOURCE or Aware Creator...not making conclusion but just believing for a good reason...
Certainly if one takes seriously the idea that a god involved itself continually or sporadically in the machinations of the natural world, all experiments and observations MUST be viewed with that in mind...ie any and all things MAY be due to a god's interaction at any given moment. So all conclusions have to have the caveat that 'if what happened or what we observed was not due to god choosing this moment to involve itself, then this or that may reflect a natural event or the outcome of a law of nature.'
Why bother with any form of religious and spiritual expressions 😂. Let's talk about the nature of reality instead of engaging in theological and religious babble. Is there actual evidence for such nonsense and the answer is no. It never ceases to amaze me that in modern day society many people still cling to religious nonsense.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
*_"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him."_* - (Origin of quote is unconfirmed; yet, is widely attributed to Louis Pasteur, Founder of microbiology and immunology)
Wow man, this guy is bloody brilliant, and is seeing things as they are and with an open mind. Isn't it fun how much more there is to all of this... if one is truly observing and absorbing the world around them do they not see the nature of things? Let biases and fears drop aside and see what can be seen.
They were already asking ‘how could creation/existence arise from nothing? How could the complexity we see come to be from a beginning without it?’ From there they imagined a system of increasing complexity from the beginning or nothing. Everybody knew smaller things made bigger things. It is interesting in a way how well it lines up, but imagining a system of levels of increasing complexity that lines up with what they can see doesn’t seem like a deeply mystical insight, just applying rules of what we see to everything.
8:44 I read all these mystical books my grandmother had when I was like 4/5. I was also watching PBS apparently quantum mechanics and I’ve been to every church for Sunday School (free adult supervision) so I’ve just been trying to figure out…. Who’s telling the truth? I’ve been told, seen, felt, heard and read lots of things - and then my imagination or gaslighted conditioning has indeed made me a little insane and I appreciate everyone’s efforts in helping me sort myself out. ✌🏼
Have any of these ways of thinking taught things that contradict each other? Does QM say that people don’t have mystical experiences, or does the Bible say that electromagnetism doesn’t exist? “He that sayeth the electron when passing a screen of two slits createth a pattern of interference shall be stoned to death!” None of our physics theories say how the universe was actually created, and even if we have some theory proven that says the universe started in the Big Bang, or has existed forever, it won’t say why this is so. If you want to believe the Big Bang was created by god and was a physical manifestation of ‘let there be light’ go for it. No discovery in science will ever tell you you’re wrong.
The only situations in which religious claims and scientific claims potentially clash are where there are explicit contradictions, such as claims about the world in the Bible that are taken literally. Firstly academic Christian theology has always subscribed to an allegorical interpretation of the Bible, for over a thousands years literalism has been considered fringe nonsense in academic Christian theological terms. Secondly it’s not so much that literalism contradicts science as such. Firstly it contradicts itself, the Bible is full of contradictory factual claims before we get anywhere near contradictions with actual reality. This is why serious students of the Bible interpret it allegorically, because that renders such contradiction immaterial.
The only conflict with ‘science’ is because science is an approach for studying reality. The Bible doesn’t say anything against the actual process or techniques of science, it just claims facts about the world. It’s not the fault of the scientific method, or even scientists, if when we look at the actual world such religious claims turn out to be false. Literalism needs to get to grips with reality, not ‘science’. It’s like declaring a microscope blasphemous because it shows you things that contradict your religion. It’s not the microscope’s fault.
Great summary of Neil’s insights. At the end of the day though, I think the choice of whether you assign the underlying “am-ness” and the finely-tuned processes to a will, will remain a choice. I think the ability to prove an omniscient will, will forever be out of reach thereby keeping faith as “leap”. I think you have to want it to be true on top of it being plausible.
I agree completely. One has to choose religion. Religion does not displace science, it provides texture and perhaps personal meaning. One thing that often disappoints on this channel is the dismissive attitude displayed by so scientists. Many of whom are flat colourless people. The nerds at the party. Those who are both scientists and religious philosophers are much more interesting.
@@ronhudson3730 I think it’s upsetting to some to think that some things are inherently non-provable. Even if you established all the underlying non-physical rules that govern all of space and time, the fact that there is a system requirement for those rules to be in tune with each other in order for a universe to maintain its head above the reality waterline still doesn’t answer why the rules exists in the first place. Rules allow things to exist in time. Why does time even have to exist? It’s a dead end, non-resolvable, proof I think. We’ll at least the magnificence of our universe keeps us busy while we search for truth and meaning and gives us a direction.
a magnificently harmonised insight-out and outside-in view !! looking forward for other talks with Theise....
'Ever question is worth of investigation.' I agree with that generally, as long as you understand that some questions are answered by saying 'This is a nonsense question', and demonstrating why.
Everything we experience is due to agreement with every atom it's answers are so well protected has to be a reasonable explanation that we aren't supposed to know time doesn't exist
They have to "think" different. Science and Religion are both each ways of "self-alienation", explained with Nietzsche. In both the (uncatchable) subject of knowledge and living entity places itself in a specific way next to itself, steps each in a very specific way next to itself, in order to intervene on itself, for reasons of self-transformation and self-realization, or with Nietzsche short: "for growth!" In science the "law-maker" subtracts itself to get the "isolated laws"; in religion it places itself next to itself to look at itself as something "isolated"!
It's also different questions and the perspectives necessary to address those questions.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one’s prior beliefs or values. This means that individuals give more weight to evidence that reinforces their beliefs and dismiss evidence that contradicts them. This can result in a skewed understanding or perception of facts, events, or data.
Big heart.. bigger scientific theory
Emptiness is the baseline of perception, and the baseline of physical reality. Imbalances in quantum foam lead to particle formation, imbalances in baseline perception create qualia from emptiness. Perception is clear until it becomes qualia, the void is clear until it emanates away from baseline. Machines and detectors we build are composed of qualia, they simply report further qualia. All this is due to being, the perception, which the universe appears in. The universe has the same dynamics as a dream. As in a dream, necessarily, observably and logically unavoidably, every creature is equally the co-creator of it. Not merely composed of or by, but IS. Radical ontological equality and oneness is found in this understanding.
So, there is some overlap between the subjective and the objective. There are also wildly differing elements.
Institutional religion and spirituality are similarly related. Institutions deviate from pure spirituality and seek to validate their nature by pointing at the spirituality they associate with. Structures of power over the masses and the nature of being have been cleverly bundled. This is vastly different from the similarities found between spirituality and science.
_Neither _*_Science_*_ nor _*_Religion THINK!_*
Who knew, Michael Scott turned out to be really smart.
My understanding for why science and religion think differently is quite different. Both ideologies stem from *core beliefs.*
*Religion:* If you are someone who believes that there is meaning and purpose embedded within existence, then you will gravitate towards religion. And when you push the logical limits of conceivability regarding religion, you end up with an infinitely existing, totally ubiquitous God for which nothing is greater. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this point.
*Science:* If you are someone who believes that existence is totally void of any meaning and purpose, then you will gravitate towards science. And when you push the logical limits of conceivability regarding science, you end up with an infinitely existing, totally ubiquitous Multiverse for which nothing is greater. ... Nothing is conceivable beyond this point.
And what is the commonality between the two? ... *Testing the limits of conceivability!*
Therefore, there is no enemy thus opposition doesn't exist and the ultimate purpose is love.
Walter Russell, from mysterious to mystical, somehow did it for me, meaning his theories assimilated a cohesive and coherent worldview, a wholesome awareness of reality by removing the disjointedness among Easter and Western thought, cosmologically from GTR to the quantum, so called esoteric to the pragmatic.
Sounds like a theory. Find a testable prediction in that theory and see if that coherent worldview represents the world we find ourselves in!
@@camdenbarkley1893 that’s a good suggestion and his theory does check out to be representative of reality in quite scientific ways
Imagination - Process of Pure Creation
The process of creation starts with thought
- an idea, conception, visualization. Everything you see was once someone's idea. Nothing exists in your world that did not first exist as pure thought.
This is true of the universe as well.
Thought is the first level of creation.
Next comes the word. Everything you say is a thought expressed. It is creative and sends forth creative energy into the universe. Words are more dynamic (thus, some might say more creative) than thought, because words are a different level of vibration from thought. They disrupt (change, alter, affect) the universe with greater impact.
Words are the second level of creation.
Next comes action.
Actions are words moving. Words are thoughts expressed. Thoughts are ideas formed. Ideas are energies come together. Energies are forces released. Forces are elements existent. Elements are particles of God, portions of ALL, the stuff of everything.
The beginning is God. The end is action. Action is God creating - or God experienced.
Hang on. There's one thing more I have to tell you. You are always seeing what by your terms you would define as the "past," even when you are looking at what is right in front of you.
I am?
It is impossible to see The Present. The Present "happens," then turns into a burst of light, formed by energy dispersing, and that light reaches your receptors, your eyes, and it takes time for it to do that.
All the while the light is reaching you, life is going on, moving forward. The next event is happening while the light from the last event is reaching you.
The energy burst reaches your eyes, your receptors send that signal to your brain, which interprets the data and tells you what you are seeing. Yet that is not what is now in front of you at all. It is what you think you are seeing. That is, you are thinking about what you have seen, telling yourself what it is, and deciding what you are going to call it, while what is happening "now" is preceding your process, and awaiting it.
To put this simply, I am always one step ahead of you.
My God, this is unbelievable.
Now listen. The more distance you place between your Self and the physical location of any event, the further into the "past" that event recedes. Place yourself a few light-years back, and what you are looking at happened very, very long ago, indeed.
Yet it did not happen "long ago." It is merely physical distance which has created the illusion of "time," and allowed you to experience your Self as being both "here, now" all the while you are being "there, then"!
One day you will see that what you call time and space are the same thing.
Then you will see that everything is happening right here, right now.
This is....this is....wild. I mean, I don't know what to make of all this.
When you understand what I have told you, you will understand that nothing you see is real. You are seeing the image of what was once an event, yet even that image, that energy burst, is something you are interpreting. Your personal interpretation of that image is called your image-ination.
And you can use your imagination to create anything. Because - and here is the greatest secret of all - your image-ination works both ways.
Please?
You not only interpret energy, you create it. Imagination is a function of your mind, which is one-third of your three-part being. In your mind you image something, and it begins to take physical form. The longer you image it (and the more OF you who image it), the more physical that form becomes, until the increasing energy you have given it literally bursts into light, flashing an image of itself into what you call your reality.
You then "see" the image, and once again decide what it is. Thus, the cycle continues. This is what I have called The Process.
This is what YOU ARE. You ARE this Process.
This is what I have meant when I have said, you are both the Creator and the Created.
I have now brought it all together for you. We are concluding this dialogue, and I have explained to you the mechanics of the universe, the secret of all life.
Okay.
Now as energy coalesced, it becomes, as I said, very concentrated. But the further one moves from the point of this concentration, the more dissipated the energy becomes. The "air becomes thinner." The aura fades. The energy never completely disappears, because it cannot. It is the stuff of which everything is made. It's All There Is. Yet it can become very, very thin, very subtle - almost "not there."
Then, in another place (read that, another part of Itself) it can again coalesce, once more "clumping together" to form what you call matter, and what "looks like" a discreet unit. Now the two units appear separate from each other, and in truth there is no separation at all.
This is, in very, very simple and elementary terms, the explanation behind the whole physical universe.
Wow. But can it be true? How do I know I haven't just made this all up?
Your scientists are already discovering that the building blocks of all of life are the same.
They brought back rocks from the moon and found the same stuff they find in trees. They take apart a tree and find the same stuff they find in you.
I tell you this: We are all the same stuff. (I and the Father are One Energy)
We are the same energy, coalesced, compressed in different ways to create different forms and different matter.
Nothing "matters" in and of itself. That is, nothing can become matter all by itself. Jesus said, "Without the Father, I am nothing." The Father of all is pure thought. This is the energy of life. This is what you have chosen to call Absolute Love.
This is the God and the Goddess, the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. It is the All-in-All, the Unmoved Mover, the Prime Source. It is that which you have sought to understand from the beginning of time. The Great Mystery, the Endless Enigma, the Eternal Truth.
There is only One of Us, and so, it is THAT WHICH YOU ARE.
I agree with Neil Theise's suggestion that Robert Kuhn try mediation. I wonder if he has? If someone is interested in consciousness but doesn't have an active contemplative practice (every culture has them) then what the heck are ya doing? There's a big difference between intellectual understanding and experiential knowing. I've heard Kuhn basically dismiss the latter many times as mere brain activity that you can't trust, which makes me suspect he doesn't actually know what it feels like. What if consciousness can only be understood from inside one’s own conscious mind? (and it doesn't take 5 years of diligent practice, as Theise suggests) I like this channel but sometimes wonder if Kuhn's mind is truly open
Robert says he believes in some form of Cosmic Tropism. Is Evolution moving in the direction of greater complexity? Geosphere- Biosphere - Noosphere. Teillhard De Chardin.
I like this guy Neil Theise. Also, where is the proof that virtual particles exist? Where is the proof that some of these virtual particles do not self annulate?
Reading science into spiritual mumbo jumbo. Robert asks the best questions
❤🎉🎯💯⚡👌I was speechless so I looked for emojies and I'm running out of them now.
Simply brilliant and to my own experience also true.
Robert's face expression was very relaxed and fascinated and almost serene... Is that a coincidence? 😉
Maybe, but I thought Robert looked rather dubious of what he was hearing.
@@debbiewheeler4066 Well, there's some subjectivity in assessing what others feel, obviously... I could be wrong therefore.
Divine Dichotomy - Conversation With God
It's important to learn about Divine Dichotomy and understand it thoroughly if you are to live in our universe with grace.
Divine Dichotomy holds that it is possible for two apparently contradictory truths to exist simultaneously in the same space.
Now on your planet people find this difficult to accept. They like to have order, and anything that does not fit into their picture is automatically rejected. For this reason, when two realities begin to assert themselves and they seem to contradict one another, the immediate assumption is that one of them must be wrong, false, untrue. It takes a great deal of maturity to see, and accept, that, in fact, they might both be true.
Yet in the realm of the absolute - as opposed to the realm of the relative, in which you live - it is very clear that the one truth which is All There Is sometimes produces an affect which, viewed in relative terms, looks like a contradiction.
This is called a Divine Dichotomy, and it is a very real part of the human experience. And as I've said, it's virtually impossible to live gracefully without accepting this. One is always grumbling, angry, thrashing about, vainly seeking "justice," or earnestly trying to reconcile opposing forces which were never meant to be reconciled, but which, by the very nature of the tension between them, produce exactly the desired effect.
The realm of the relative is, in fact, held together by such tensions. As an example, the tension between good and evil. In ultimate reality there is no such thing as good and evil. In the realm of the absolute, all there is is love. Yet in the realm of the relative you have created the experience of what you "call" evil, and you have done it for a very sound reason. You wanted to experience love, not just "know" that love is All There Is, and you cannot experience something when there is nothing else but that. And so, you created in your reality (and continue to do so every day) a polarity of good and evil, thus using one so that you might experience the other.
And here we have a Divine Dichotomy - two seemingly contradictory truths existing simultaneously in the same place. Specifically:
There is such a thing as good and evil.
All there is is love.
Thank You for explaining this to me. You've touched on this before, but thank You for helping me understand Divine Dichotomy even better.
You're welcome.
Now, as I said, the greatest Divine Dichotomy is the one we are looking at now.
There is only One Being, and hence, only One Soul. And, there are many souls in the One Being.
Here's how the Dichotomy works: You've just had it explained to you that there is no separation between souls. The soul is the energy of life that exists within and around (as the aura of) all physical objects. In a sense, it is that which is "holding" all physical objects in place.
The "Soul of God" holds in the universe, the "soul of man" holds in each individual human body.
The body is not a container, a "housing," for the soul; the soul is the container for the body.
That's right.
Yet there is no "dividing line" between souls - there is no place where "one soul" ends and "another" begins. And so, it is really one soul holding all bodies.
Correct.
Yet the one soul "feels like" a bunch of individual souls.
Indeed it does - indeed I do - by design.
Can You explain how it works?
Yes.
While there is no actual separation between souls, it is true that the stuff of which the One Soul is made manifest in physical reality at different speeds, producing different degrees of density.
Different speeds? When did speed come in?
All of life is a vibration. That which you call life (you could just as easily call it God) is pure energy. That energy is vibrating constantly, always. It is moving in waves. The waves vibrate at different speeds, producing different degrees of density, or light. This, in turn, produces what you would call different "effects" in the physical world - actually, different physical objects. Yet while the objects are different and discreet, the energy which produces them is exactly the same.
Let Me go back to the example that you used of the air between your living room and dining room. It was a good use of imagery that just popped right out of you. An inspiration.
From guess where.
Yes, I gave it to you. Now you said that there was no specific place between those two physical locations where the "air of the living room" stopped and the "air of the dining room" began. And that is true. Yet there is a place where the "air of the lining room" becomes less dense. That is,vit dissipates, becomes "thinner." So, too, the "air of the dining room." The further from the dining room you go, the less you smell diner!
Now the air in the house is the same air. There is no "separate air" in the dining room. Yet the air in the dining room sure seems like "other air." For one thing, it smells different!
So because the air has taken on different characteristics, it seems as though it is different air. But it is not. It is all the same air, seeming different. In the living room you smell the fireplace, in the dining room you smell dinner. You might even go into one room and say, "Whew, it's stuffy. Let's get some air in here," as if there was no air at all. And yet, of course, there's plenty of air. What you are wanting to do is change its characteristics.
So you bring in some from the outside. Yet that is the same air, too. There is only one air, moving in, around, and through everything.
This is cool. I totally "get" this. I love the way You explain the universe to me in ways I can totally "get."
Well, thank you. I'm trying here. So let Me go on.
Please.
Like the air in your house, the energy of life - what we'll call the "Soul of God" - takes on different characteristics as it surrounds different physical objects. Indeed, that energy coalesced in a particular way to form those objects.
As particles of energy join together to form physical matter, they become very concentrated. Mashed up. Pushed together. They begin to "look like," even "feel like," distinct units. That is, they begin to seem "separate," different," from all the other energy. Yet this is all the same energy, behaving differently.
It is this very act of behaving differently which makes it possible for That Which Is All to manifest as That Which Is Many.
As I explained in Book 1, That Which Is could not experience Itself as What It Is until It developed this ability to differentiate. So That Which Is All separated into That Which Is This, and That Which Is That. (I'm trying to make this very simple now.)
The "clumps of energy" which coalesced into discreet units that held in physical beings are what you have chosen to call "souls." The parts of Me that have become the lot of You are what We are talking about here.
Thus, the Divine Dichotomy:
There is only One of us.
There are Many of us.
KNOW THE TRUTH - SET YOURSELF FREE.
Now I tell you this: Know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.
There is no separation. Not from each other, not from God, and not from anything that is.
This truth I will repeat over and over on these pages. This observation I will make again and again.
Act as if you were separate from nothing, and no one, and you will heal your world tomorrow.
This is the greatest secret of all time. It is the answer for which man has searched for millennia. It is the solution for which he has worked, the revelation for which he has prayed.
Act as if you were separate from nothing, and you heal the world.
Understand that it is about power with, not power over.
People believe they should fear their loving God and fear no other and will fight until death to keep that belief and pass it on. This is an ongoing bloodbath greater than all the sacrifices combined in Gods name.
Should visit London 'speakers corner' to grab some idea
Or visit the youtube comments of any interesting channel.
4:51 energy, at the quantum level ,is somehow being converted into mass... or mass itself at that scale has different properties which could be very different from those of mass at our scale...
Kudos Lawrence for the closing questions.
As to the answer, "what's the chance?" the chance is 100%. There is a 100% chance that some old poetry and navel gazing can be compared in some ways to some views of some modern scientific theories. In fact many. It's no surprise at all. It's a useless observation, but it does answer the question lol.
@@edwardtutman196 But there are many thousands of existing novel thoughts to draw upon. Pick a thing, and someone somewhere wrote something that can kind of be compared to it. Just Nostradamus alone lol. But it seems cooler and spooky and heavy, man, if it's obscure old religious texts.
The human brain excels at pattern matching, but unfortunately the perceived patterns are often just imagined, not real. So it's typically impossible to know whether a "science-consistent" modern interpretation of an old text really matches what the centuries-dead author had in mind. Even with living authors, their meaning is open to interpretation & misunderstanding.
@@brothermine2292 Well yeah.
@@brothermine2292Bingo!
@TESTCHANNEL-qg8qn”When you separate” ? When were they combined or infused ?
Awesome quantum foam and inward and outward belief and science modeling !
How so ?
It is very easy for a physicist to attack the spiritual paradigm with a physicalist type of philosophy, saying you are not appreciating the underpinned principles that theories need to be based on; blah blah blah... but I could just as easily attack the fitness routines of your average physicist, who is merely looking to supplement their lifestyle with some rigorous activity at the gym. As someone who has been a very good athlete, I could easily approach your endeavor with my own sense of criteria, saying "Hey if you do it this way you'll get better results, and your form is bad, and you need a strategy; you're combining conflicting dichotomies, if you do it one way or the other you'll get different benefits... 80% of your fitness routines is counteractive; look at me, blah blah blah...
Spiritual virtue and scientific virtue are nowhere near the same aims. Trying rigorously to disprove your own theory is nothing like ego transcendence, and the most profound spiritual experience is not even considered an observation at all, by scientific standards. 😂
I suspect my own spiritual experiences may possibly be closer to truth than even the observational powers in the imagination of Dr. Lise Meitner (She is the first person to split the atom).
It is in no way very obvious to me that science is even in pursuit of the truth to begin with. The senses that evolutionary fitness has developed in our species has very clear and obvious rules for risk an reward payoffs, and scientific industry is motivated by this very paradigm. Science does not survive by pursuing the truth.😂
Real spiritual practice is always about a dichotomy of being willing and able to relinquish the life in this world in order to be able to exchange this life for life in the prime reality.
What's the difference between history and geology? The difference between historical facts and scientific measurement? What's the difference between human actions and behavior and the actions and behavior of Nature?
If you can't or won't see a difference between what controls human behavior and what controls the planets in their courses then are you ignorant or wise?
Science has many books and much new discoveries. Religion has some books that say this is this and that is that. And that's all. Nothing more nothing less.
Are they not two sides of the same coin? Religion proposes answers through metaphor and logical deduction. Science through postulation, experimentation and accepted conclusion. Neither can prove or disprove the existence of God as the prime-agent behind and the sustinance creation.
Come back and explain how religion uses "logical deduction" I am most familiar with the Christian religion so maybe I am missing something here from one of the other more logical religions.
The root of religions - Hallucination. 😇
Sure.
But also ancient people with exuberant imaginations.
Many of which who wanted to be culturally relevant.
Sorta like many of today’s podcasters
@@readynowforever3676 yes... It's a long time though. Human beings should have evolved in this time with broader understanding of life and spirituality. Only a few people like Buddha , Shiva , Jesus or Zarathustra have touched higher consciousness. Otherwise humanity has only seen thousands and thousands of wars in the name of religion in the last 3000 years alone.
Hallucinations augmented with drugs and deprivation; also vivid dreams and near death experiences.
I don’t think religion is so much hallucinations, at least not at the start.
I think it started as story telling. stories then cobbled together with the theme of an all powerful god and eventually real events.
Honestly, who would believe the stories of creation/fall of man, Noah’s Ark, Moses and the Exodus if they weren’t part if the bible? My guess would be very few people.
First three lines of Genesis allege 'god' created light after creating Earth. Please read the verse in order. The Earth and Moon came into existence before the sun is dumm. The Earth or Moon cannot come into existence before the sun came into existence that makes logical sense. Human's ideas put into holy book can then claimed 'it came from 'god'".
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Science and religion dont always think differently. Dogma can also exist in science as much as it does in religion.... in which case the science goes out the window and then becomes scientism.
If it’s “dogma” then it’s not science. The scientific method develops or corrects the scientific repository.
With religion, only a new interpretation comes about.
A different “interpretation”, historically always meant-a new denomination.
Ultimately, religion itself is just an interpretation postulation of an anthropic deity.
@@readynowforever3676 That's true-- if it's dogma, then it's not science. And yet there's all this dogma still floating around in science posing as science when it's actually scientism or religious nonsense. A throwback of the old ways of religious thinking - of tryring to defend certain assumptions or beliefs that have no actual scientific or empirical basis.
False equivalency. Dogma is the exception in science. Dogma is the rule in religion. Stop with the nonsense.
@@markb3786 There are plenty examples of dogmas still deeply entrenched in science today, in the scientific community., and in many theories. Do some research and stop with the denial. Denial will get you nowhere.
Spirit is the essence of consciousness, the energy of the Universe that creates all things.
Each one of us is a part of that Spirit Energy - a Divine Entity. So the Spirit is the Higher Self, the Eternal Being that lives within us.
Form is the physical world: body, mind, personality. We as spiritual beings created the physical world as a place to learn. We're here to learn how to master the process of creation - to learn how to consciously channel the creative energy of spirit into physical form.
HOW CONSCIOUNESS CREATES REALITY?
If God is Reality
And if Reality Is Consciousness
Then God Is Consciousness
I Think therefore I Am God Consciousness
The whole universe is one reality which is pure consciousness.
Pure consciousness is absolute existence.
God makes things through the direct act of becoming the things which He creates. In the beginning the One differentiated into the many. The One entered into the many and became the Self of each. The being within everything is the One. When you merge with this nonlocal Self, you become one with the Self of all that exists. The One is the Higher Self of all. You are the One.
The God Spirit In Me Is The Same God Spirit In You, And The Spirit Of All Beings. Enlightenment Is The realization That You Are All Part Of The Universal Spirit Of All That Exists, Which Is GOD.
Each of us is the universal spirit projecting a particular point of view.
My Self is inseparable from all that exists, just as your self is inseparable from all that exists.
You are an aspect of Infinite Intelligence, and Infinite Intelligence is the source of all that exists. Therefore you are the source of all that exists and you create your own experience. Everything is possible because everything exists within you. The same unbounded potential of the Infinite Spirit also resides in each and every one of us.
Everything in the universe is consciousness. Space and time in all planes of reality are only projections within universal consciousness. There really is no here or there for everything is at one place where Mind is. Mind does not move at all. Mind simply is (Not to be confused with the brain). Mind is everywhere yet nowhere. Mind is nowhere but Here, Now. We are all existing together as a singularity in one place and time. Everything is one, Here and Now.
Your soul is the reflection of all souls. You are the Other. Without the other, you would not exist. You are defined by your relationships with others. You would need to describe the whole universe in order to define a single person. Therefore every single person is the whole universe. Your soul is both personal and universal at the same time. Everyone is a reflection of yourself. You are in a hall of mirrors where every reflection of yourself appears different. Others you admire reflect the qualities you most cherish in yourself. Others you detest reflect the qualities you most deny in yourself. Each person you see is a different version of you.
The outer world is a mirror of yourself at any place and time. If you want to know the state of your personal consciousness, just look around and see what is happening to you. If you want to know the state of the collective consciousness, just look around at what is happening in the world. Your personal reality is synchronistically orchestrated by your sense of Self at all times. If a critical mass of people expressed their higher selves, they would cause a transformation in collective consciousness and the world reality. Every time a person rises in personal consciousness, he moves the state of the world towards a higher one than before.
TRANSCENDENT WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can experience all possibilities. Your awareness is open. You are connected to the source. Your consciousness is merged with the mind of God.
SUBTLE WORLD: You are comfortable here when you can hold on to your vision. You trust yourself to follow where the mind goes. You aren't bound up in resistance, objections, skepticism, and rigid beliefs. Inspiration occurs as a normal part of your existence.
MATERIAL WORLD: You are comfortable with your personal reality. You take responsibility for it. You read the world as a reflection of who you are and what is happening "in here." As the reflection shifts and changes, you track the changes occurring inside yourself.
The Need to Create, Discover, and Explore.
God becomes a creative source. He gave us our birthright of curiosity. He remains unknowable, but he unfolds one secret after another in creation. At the far edge of the universe, the unknown is a challenge and a source of wonder. God wants us not to worship but to evolve. Our role is to discover and explore. Nature exists to provide endless mysteries that challenge our intelligence - there is always more to discover.
This is your God if you live to explore and be creative, if you feel happiest confronting the unknown, if you have total confidence that nature can be unraveled, including human nature, as long as we keep questioning and never settle for fixed, preordained truth.
God becomes pure wonder. After reason has reached the limits of understanding, the mystery remains. Sages, saints, and the divinely inspired have penetrated it. They have felt a divine presence that transcends everyday life. Materialism is an illusion. Creation was fashioned in two layers, the visible and the invisible. Miracles become real when everything is a miracle. To reach God, one must accept the reality of invisible things. Nature is a mask for the divine.
This is your God if you are a spiritual seeker. You want to know what lies behind the mask of materialism, to find the source of healing, to experience peace, and to be in direct contact with a divine presence.
Unity, the State Beyond All Needs.
God becomes One. There is complete fulfillment because you have reached the goal of seeking. You experience the divine everywhere. The last hint of separation has vanished. You have no need to divide saint from sinner, because God imbues everything. In this state, you don't know the truth; you become it. The universe and every event in it are expressions of a single underlying Being, which is pure awareness, pure intelligence, and pure creativity. Nature is the outward form that consciousness takes as it unfolds in time and space.
This is your God if you feel totally connected to your soul and your source. Your consciousness has expanded to embrace a cosmic perspective. You see everything happening in the mind of God. The ecstasy of great mystics, who seem especially gifted or chosen, now becomes available to you, because you have fully matured spiritually.
The God that brings the scheme to an end, God as One, is different from the others. He isn't a projection. He signifies a state of total certainty and wonder, and if you reach that state, you are no longer projecting. Every need has been fulfilled; the path has ended with reality itself.
It is interesting to examine how reality came into existence. Perhaps it is more important to think about why reality came into existence and our responsibility to ensure it serves its intended purpose.
For beetles, apparently. Thus our duty is to spread mulch.
@@bozo5632 , perhaps you could expand upon this first cut on the why. Think about the timeline of the universe. From initial creation to the present time. What is the most important development (at least to the human species)? I submit that the greatest achievement of reality is the emergence of intelligence. The question is: will we learn how to use it before we destroy the truly amazing world into which we find ourselves?
@@JustAThought01 Why reality exists and what's important from a human perspective don't seem like the same thing to me. It seems unlikely to me that the universe has an intended purpose, and even less likely that anyone would ever figure it out. But if it does have a purpose, it seems to revolve around hydrogen. Or if life is supposedly super important, despite being dwarfed by the abundance of intergalactic hydrogen plasma, then clearly it's about bacteria, or else beetles.
I think what's important from the human perspective is stuff that's important from the human perspective. Food and water. Mating. Getting in the habit of always putting your keys in the same place. We're mammals, not transcendental beings.
@@bozo5632 , do you not rate knowledge as being of upmost importance? You mention food, water and remembering where you put your keys. These all revolve around knowledge which is the result of intelligence. Using our skill of intelligence to improve our individual lives would seem to be a good focus of the species. If the universe has no purpose then why does it exist? Seems like a great deal of effort and resource if no end point is expected. My thought: it is a good question to ponder.
@@JustAThought01 It's important to us mammals. Important to me.
Important to beetles too, but I'm not a beetle.
Smart people say the dumbest things.
You should expound elaborate on that. But in general i concur.
@@readynowforever3676 Well when smart people say things like “something coming from nothing”
I come across people who think of themselves as scientific who regurgitate what they have been told without question.
This makes me think of people who would once say well the cardinal says such and such so it must be true.
I am not so sure science and religion are so diferrent.
You should study the word “epistemology”. Science produces technology religion produces excuses.
It brings us no closer to understanding the origens of life and the universe but people believe it does because of what they are told by scientists who say we know.@@readynowforever3676
Well, sometimes science is religion/sometimes religion is science.
Well sometimes people make up nonsense to try to bring others down to their level.
@@tomjackson7755 more than sometimes
aren't we made of stardust and looking inside makes you look at those primordial element or something xD! if you look long enough that's the issue!
Speaking cognitively, the basis for science is empiricism. The basis for religion is wishful thinking, pretend wisdom, solice, and group solidarity.
💯 they will always remain separate in definition
Yup, that about sums it up.....😑
Really? Or are these just your assumptions? Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of BS in religion, but is your description accurate enough to be true? What about a kind of science that ignores certain phenomena, because they do not fit its theoretical framework? What about religion based on experience? Let's imagine that science has it's limits. The obvious one is that it cannot study inner life directly (it started to change, but it's still a far cry from direct access). Religious experience is part of inner life. It may be nonsense, it may be real. How to test it? Deciding ad hoc what is true on theoretical grounds is not testing and it's not science.
I wonder does this guy know anything about the scientific frontier that’s in its embryonic stages-Neurology?
Does this also mean the Creator has a supreme infinite power, where as the human interpretations of God is that which requires a thin screen of dark matter to see the maximum allowable interior of its grand ceiling? However, without the screen it is just insignificant or not worth pursuing an objective from a human perspective? Also different from the exercise of the poet from dream principles, whereby the ceiling or wall is not necessary and inherently unprovable... but even if the dreamer could detail the intricate designs it is obviously impossible to play it back in exact detail as it was first observed. Therefore the dreamer would need use a different combination of rules to catergorize its order in terms of its usefulness. Time and utility of the category shows up if the screen is a common observation feature of its interior to objective function 🤔 maybe? Personally I find different cultural interpretations of God have different light cone capabilities except fundamentally they all work together to assist whatever is needed to be understood in the time it is required if indeed the objective is still a node of a branch in that particular catergory.
If it wasn't for the greed of the Western world and the children of past presidents who are president after two or 3 generations, we all would have done more good and learn more about ourselves. So now, you will have to dig deep, yet will will not come close till you find the strength to step up discrimination and discrepancies.
What would a higher mind want from lesser minds and it happens to be experiences example someone today ate a banana and so on
Religion deals with the question of why anything exists at all and proposes intelligent design, science is limited in the fact that real science can only make predictions based on observations and since an intelligent designer exists outside of the universe science really can’t speak to why anything exists or an intelligent designer. It’s not rocket science.
Are you assuming there was a designer?
@@brothermine2292 Are you assuming there is not a designer, do you have a logical alternative for why anything exists at all?
@@brandonhodnett5420 : No, I'm not making that assumption. I'm agnostic about it due to a lack of a compelling argument about the origin of the universe... something that's hard to study because the evidence about it, and about the nature of time & space, is very limited.
I infer by the context of your question that you are assuming there both was and still is a designer. Do you have a logical explanation for how a designer could have come into existence? (I'm not a fan of using "magical" or "circular" reasoning to fill in gaps in our understanding. so I hope your explanation doesn't require either of those.)
I'll note that there appear to be three alternatives regarding the origin of the universe, whether or not there was a designer: (1) The universe could have always existed so its past is infinitely long, or (2) the universe could have had a beginning at some finite time in the past, or (3) time could loop so that the beginning of the universe is also in the future.
Note 2: I'm busy and I'm not a cosmologist, so don't expect me to participate in this thread much longer.
Let's start here.
In the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else.
So in the beginning, that which Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. Yet All That Is could not know itself - because All That Is is all there was, and there was nothing else. And so, All That Is...was not. For in the absence of something else, All That Is, is not.
This is the great Is/Not Is to which mystics have referred from the beginning of time.
Now All That Is knew it was all there was - but this was not enough, for it could only know its utter magnificence conceptually, not experiencially. Yet the experience of itself is that for which it longed, for it wanted to know what it felt like to be so magnificent. Still, this was impossible, because the very term "magnificent" is a relative term. All That Is could not know what it felt like to be magnificent unless that which is not showed up. In the absence of that which is not, that which IS, is not. Do you understand this?
The one thing that All That Is knew is that there was nothing else. And so it could, and would, never know Itself from a reference point outside of Itself. Such a point did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single place within. The "Is-Not Is." The Am-Not Am.
Still, the All of Everything chose to know Itself experiencially.
This energy - this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-by-anyone-else energy - chose to experience Itself as the utter magnificence It was. In order to do this, It realized It would have to use a reference point within.
It reasoned, quite correctly, that any portion of Itself would necessarily have to be less than the whole, and that if it thus simply divided Itself - becoming, in one glorious moment, that which is this, and that which is that. For the first time, this and that existed, quite apart from each other. And still, both existed simultaneously. As did all that was neither.
Thus, three elements suddenly existed: that which is here. That which is there. And that which is neither here nor there - but which must exist for here and there to exist.
It is the nothing which holds the everything. It is the non-space which holds the space. It is the all which holds the parts.
Now this nothing which holds the everything is what some people call God. Yet that is not accurate, either, for it suggests that there is something God is not - namely, everything that is not "nothing." But I Am All Things - seen and unseen - so this description of Me as the Great Unseen - the No-Thing, or Space Between, an essentially Eastern mystical definition of God, is no more accurate than the essentially Western practical description of God as all that is seen. Those who believe that God is All That Is and All That Is Not, are those whose understanding is correct.
Now in creating that which is "here" and that which is "there," God made it possible for God to know Itself. In the moment of this explosion from within, God created 'relativity' - the greatest gift God ever gave to Itself. Thus, relationship is the greatest gift God ever gave to you, a point to be discussed in detail later.
From the No-Thing thus sprang the Everything - a spiritual event entirely consistent, incidentally, with what your scientists call The Big Bang Theory.
As the elements of all raced forth, time was created, for a thing was first here, then it was there - and the period it took to get from here to there was measurable.
Just as the parts of Itself which are seen began to define themselves, "relative" to each other, so, too, did the parts which are unseen.
God knew that for love to exist - and to know itself as pure love - its exact opposite had to exist as well. So God voluntarily created the great polarity - the absolute opposite of love - everything that love is not - what is now called fear. In the moment fear existed, love could exist as a thing that could be experienced.
It is this creation of duality between love and its opposite which humans refer in their various mythologies as the birth of evil, the fall of Adam, the rebellion of Satan, and so forth.
Just as you have chosen to personify pure love as the character you call God, so have you chosen to personify abject fear as the character you call the devil.
This mythology has been mankind's early attempt to understand, and tell others in a way they could understand, a cosmic occurrence of which the human soul is deeply aware, but of which the mind can barely conceive.
In rendering the universe as a divided version of Itself, God produced, from pure energy, all that now exists - both seen and unseen.
In other words, not only was the physical universe thus created, but the metaphysical universe as well. The part of God which forms the second half of the Am/Not Am equation also exploded into infinite number of units smaller than the whole. These energy units you would call spirits.
In some of your religious mythologies it is stated that "God the Father" had many spirit children. This parallel to the human experience of life multiplying itself seems to be the only way the masses could be made to hold in reality the idea of the sudden appearance - the sudden existence - of countless spirits in the "Kingdom of Heaven."
In this instance, your mythical tales and stories are not so far from ultimate reality - for the endless spirits comprising the totality of Me are, in a cosmic sense, My offspring.
My divine purpose in dividing Me was to create sufficient parts of Me so that I could know Myself experientially. There is only one way for the Creator to know Itself experientially as the Creator, and that is to create. And so I gave to each of the countless parts of Me (to all of My spirit children) the same power to create which I have as the whole.
This is what your religions mean when they say that you were created in the "image and likeness of God."
This doesn't mean, as some have suggested, that our physical bodies look alike (although God can adopt whatever physical form God chooses for a particular purpose). It does mean that our essence is the same. We are composed of the same stuff. We ARE the "same stuff"! With all the same properties and abilities - including the ability to create physical reality out of thin air.
Quantum Physics=Advaita Vedanta=🕉️
What scientist can explain the origins of the universe (the big fart nonsense) and where did all life come from? For the big bang to happen you need the 4 forces of the universe to have existed before any big bang? So who made these laws? I'll give you the answer: The Mind of God Consciousness, the Mind of Infinite Space and All Space Is Vibrations of Energy, the Energy of the Human Mind of Consciousness.
What nonsense. And if he didn’t have family religion imposing upon him, he wouldn’t think twice about rationalising kabbalah fairy talk.
Can you come with something more philosophically advanced and original than these sound-bites every low-level atheist knows and repeats? Something more challenging and exciting? Actual arguments based on solid assumptions?
9:09 because then you can discern where the pattern of creation (god) ends and you as a free will individual having a body/life experience before it’s over. My understanding of reincarnation is either you come back to help the slow learners or you are a slow learner. We’re in a black hole of spiritual remedial learning 😂
Science requires excessive thinking. Religion requires NO thinking and it sometimes punishes thinking all together.
Why call it "excessive?"
John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 5:19
Then Jesus answered and said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.
John 8:28-29
Then Jesus said to them, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and that I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these things. And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him."
John 8:42
Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
John 14:28
You have heard Me say to you, 'I am going away and coming back to you.' If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, 'I am going to the Father,' for My Father is greater than I.
John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.
Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
John 5:30
I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.
John 10:29-30
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.'
John 12:23-35
New International Version
23 Jesus replied, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24 Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25 Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
27 “Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name!”
Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.” 29 The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine. 31 Now is the time for judgment on this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out. 32 And I, when I am lifted up[a] from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” 33 He said this to show the kind of death he was going to die.
34 The crowd spoke up, “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah will remain forever, so how can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’? Who is this ‘Son of Man’?”
35 Then Jesus told them, “You are going to have the light just a little while longer. Walk while you have the light, before darkness overtakes you. Whoever walks in the dark does not know where they are going.
Science is always discovering odd scraps of magical wisdom and making a tremendous fuss about its cleverness. Only mysticism can save this world...
Is there any evidence that mysticism can save the world?
"Why Science and Religion Think Differently"......should be obvious even to a snail. One deals in facts, the other in pure fantasy.
Because science deals with the verifiable facts and religion with the baseless fantasy. Science is falsifiable, religion isn’t.
Is the multiverse falsifiable? Do you consider it to be a "scientific theory"?
Calling all religion a "baseless fantasy" either demonstrates ignorance or a type of intellectual closemindedness, and either way it betrays the sort of rational thinking I am sure you pretend to posses.
@@Epiousios18The multiverse comes from taking a theory and removing assumptions. Removing assumption from any theory results in infinity.
@@Epiousios18 Anything that is not falsifiable is not science. The idea of a multiverse is, at the moment, a speculation at best; albeit, not completely baseless. As for your personal attacks, and your arrogant (and no doubt faith-based) assertions; well, that’s exactly what they are.
@@NothingMaster If the multiverse isn't "completely baseless" than neither is most developed religious thought. Simple as that. That also wasn't a personal attack, I was merely observing the fact that people who pretend that all religion is "baseless fantasy" are doing so out of ignorance or a form of closemindedness.
Do you really think people like Newton, Leibniz, Bacon, or Maldacena didn't/don't have a good basis for their religious thought? Not saying you have to agree with the ideas, but taking the arrogant approach that it is all "baseless fantasy" is just that.
@@Epiousios18 Totally agree with your point. . Neither science nor religion is baseless.. They have solid ideologies.. Science is just a tool to study the world around us and within us both physical and non-physical... Religion contemplates about the world and strives to discover the truth in it's own way.. Both thoughts are valid and required.. I think these two are not in conflict.. with enough advancement both systems can prove each other's claims regarding what's behind everything - the nature of existence, consciousness and fundamentals of universe/multiverse etc... Science is still in its infancy.. if it can achieve so much with comparatively lesser tools, imagine what science can discover with few more centuries of continual advancement.. It can discover God and heavens..!! It's already on the right track.. Think future, far far ahead like centuries ahead and you will know science and religion do not conflict with each other... they meet at many points.. .. In other words, they make a lot of sense..
Evolution Could Never Happen at All
The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.
This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.
No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18
The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.
Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?
Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19
This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.
The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.
Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.
From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.
Evolution Is Religion -- Not Science
In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20
The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.
The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21
Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.
Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22
Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.
The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:
Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23
A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24
It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25
The difference between science and religion is very obvious. Here is one example :
When science found out how to explain lightning and thunder, they then concluded that there is no God, and that their Consciousness is a product of EXPLOSION of NOTHINGESS (BigBang)... very funny...
While faithfuls just believe that their Consciousness could have possibly originated from a Conscious SOURCE or Aware Creator...not making conclusion but just believing for a good reason...
The faithful DO make conclusions. Agnostics are the ones who consider alternative possibilities.
@@brothermine2292 ..those are Atheist con-artists preaching God for money, sex, control, etc...... Genuine BELIEVERS just believe...
religion is the stagnation of science
Certainly if one takes seriously the idea that a god involved itself continually or sporadically in the machinations of the natural world, all experiments and observations MUST be viewed with that in mind...ie any and all things MAY be due to a god's interaction at any given moment. So all conclusions have to have the caveat that 'if what happened or what we observed was not due to god choosing this moment to involve itself, then this or that may reflect a natural event or the outcome of a law of nature.'
Science flies you to the Moon.
Religion flies you into buildings.
Myth is literature. Move on.
😂
Because god wasn't created in this universe like 2001apace odyssey or promethesus but a Judea Christian a god not from this universe
sure wish he would pay more attention
FYI God doesn't exist. Time too move on.
they are the same. dogma = axiom/postulate.
No, you try a million postulates, and you're always happy to throw away the latest one. Opposite of dogma.
Excuse me but, please get better guests and ask better questions
The last question was good.
Yes. Maybe we should get you on there next.
Lot of gobbledygook without evidence,come off of it.Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal.
Why bother with any form of religious and spiritual expressions 😂. Let's talk about the nature of reality instead of engaging in theological and religious babble. Is there actual evidence for such nonsense and the answer is no. It never ceases to amaze me that in modern day society many people still cling to religious nonsense.