Science is neutral about God

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
dattaswami
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Science is neutral about God

Post by dattaswami »

SCIENCE IS NEUTRAL ABOUT GOD

[For intellectuals] Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only

Science goes up to the space only, which is very subtle form of energy. Due to bending of space around the boundaries of object, space cannot be treated as nothing since nothing can bend. The topmost scientist, Einstein, treats the space as geometrical entity and not absolutely existing item. He treats space as relatively existing based on the existence of two materialistic items, since space is the distance between two materialistic items. If the matter disappears, space also disappears according to him. If all the matter is converted into energy, you may imagine the situation as space in which the waves of energy travel. Of course, according to Einstein, energy also disappears if matter disappears.

In that way, the energy including the space also disappears on the disappearance of matter. Like that, he is correct in his own way. Energy is also treated as matter since the fundamental unit of energy is accepted to have rest mass. Energy and matter become simultaneous forms and are inter-convertible. While accepting all this, you can also believe that matter is generated from energy by condensation. You may say that the fundamental unit of space, which is energy, also has rest mass and thus, energy and matter are simultaneously created.

For the sake of convenience, you can distinguish matter and energy and you can also distinguish space from energy and matter and assume the space as almost nothing. All these are various assumptions based on convenience for analytical studies of the creation. Einstein concludes that matter, energy and space exist or disappear simultaneously. We also agree to this statement based on the above scientific analysis. But, we slightly differ in saying that the space disappears on the disappearance of energy since space itself is energy. If space is nothing, it should exist even on the disappearance of matter and energy. When the total energy disappears, space should also disappear being a part of energy. However, the final conclusion is one and the same.

Science ends its analysis at the space. The characteristics of space are the spatial dimensions (length, width and height), the product of which is the volume. Ancient Indian logic also says that volume (parimana) is the characteristic of space. The Veda says that God created energy as well as space. This contradicts another Vedic statement, which says that God created space, space created air, air created fire, fire created water and water created earth etc. The contradiction is that why God is said to be the creator of space and energy only?

If you take the sense of the actual creator to be God, the Veda should have said God as the creator of every item. In the sequential steps of creation, the word ‘Agni’ is used, which is visible energy. But in the context of God creating the energy, the word ‘Tejas’ is used, which is the invisible energy. Since space is invisible energy, the Veda said God as the creator of space, which is invisible energy. There is no contradiction since the essence of this apparent contradiction is only to say that space is a form of invisible energy. X-rays, Gamma rays etc., are also other forms of invisible energy.

Science keeps silent about God since no analysis is possible in the case of God, who is beyond the spatial dimensions. Our intelligence cannot go beyond the spatial dimensions and therefore, can never imagine the entity, which has no spatial dimensions i.e., volume or area or single dimension. The difference between science and philosophy is that philosophy accepts the existence of God, who has no spatial dimensions, whereas science keeps silent about the existence of God due to absence of spatial dimensions. However, both science and philosophy are similar in the inability of imagining God, who does not have the spatial dimensions.

Magic Tricks and Miracles

You may straight away ask that why should you accept the existence of any item, which does not have spatial dimensions. Science says that the universe consisting of space, energy and matter is the absolute reality and has no generator. We don’t find fault with the true scientist in keeping silent about God. But, we oppose the false scientist, who says that God does not exist. The simple reason is that God is unimaginable due to the absence of spatial dimensions and consequently due to the failure of application of any analysis. But, you find the so called miracles, which are the unimaginable events and science fails to analyze these miracles. But still, the miracles exist.

A true scientist sincerely accepts the existence of miracles and keeps silent about them. A pseudo-scientist, who has half knowledge of science is always egoistic and denies the existence of miracles. Miracles cannot be denied as magic. Miracle may give the same result as that of magic. But, based on this, you cannot say that miracle is magic. By magic, you may generate a golden ring by hiding it in the folding of hand. Such generation is false because in the real generation, the ring is prepared from gold. You cannot say that whenever a ring is generated, it is always done by the false magic only. The false magic cannot disprove the real generation of the ring. In the real generation, you are only generating the ring from already generated gold. You are not generating the gold from energy by way of condensation.

In a miracle, the gold is generated from energy by way of condensation. If the miracle is done by a devotee, the condensation of gold is from already existing cosmic energy. If the miracle is performed by God in human form, the energy is created by the will of God since the already existing cosmic energy was also created by the will of God. Therefore, in a miracle performed by a devotee by the grace of God, the law of conservation of energy is followed. This difference between God and devotee need not be discussed here since both are one and the same as far as the inability of the human being is concerned.

A human being can neither create energy nor create matter from the existing energy. Moreover, the instantaneous implementation of the specific design of the ring is also not possible for the human being. All these impossibilities make the event unimaginable, which is called as a miracle. In spite of the impossible unimaginable steps, the basic process of generation of matter from energy and the generation of ring from the matter by application of some work form of energy is one and the same and is not violated even in the miracle. Generation of a product may be done in several ways and since the product is one and the same, one way of generation cannot disprove the other way.

For example, the same sodium chloride can be generated by different chemical reactions. You might have generated it by one specific chemical reaction. It does not mean that the other ways of reactions used in the generation of sodium chloride cannot exist. You might have generated some ash by moving the hand with the help of magic. It does not mean that ash cannot be produced by other real ways. Your way of generation of ash is false since it is magic. But, generation of ash by a miracle need not be false because already the possibility of the alternative real way is existing. Miracle is only an extension of the real way. The ash is generated by the oxidation of some matter and this is the real way. In the miracle, the matter is generated from energy. Therefore, the present real way of generation of ash is only a part of the entire real process. The entire real process is called as miracle and a part of the real process is called as the human way of generation of ash.

The miracle establishes the existence of unimaginable entity with the help of imaginable items. Once the unimaginable entity is practically established, the saying of the unimaginable entity becomes valid till you disprove the unimaginable event. In future, you may disprove it or you may not disprove it at all. I cannot depend on the first possibility only to disbelieve the present status of the issue. You might have shown some petty un-imaginable events as imaginable. That does not mean that you will show the mega unimaginable event also as imaginable.

An ignorant man thinks that he cannot touch the roof by high jump. He is ignorant of the fact that anyone can touch the roof by the long practice of high jump. You may exploit his ignorance and touch the roof by long practice. The ignorant man thought this as really impossible. Now, he is surprised at this and will believe that one day or other, you will touch the sky also. He is also ignorant that the sky can never be touched. But, you cannot fool a wise man, who knows that the roof can be touched by long practice and the sky can never be touched by any amount of practice. There was one day, when the man did not know that a ring can be prepared from gold. In course of time, the ring was generated from gold. This does not mean that in future, on some day, the man will achieve the power of generating the gold from energy.

A true scientist is always humble, understands all these aspects and therefore, keeps silent about God. In no book of science, I have found a chapter dedicated to denial of existence of God. Science never mentions God because He is unimaginable. Even Shankara said that the best expression about God is only silence. Only ignorant and egoistic scientists with little knowledge of science become atheists, always trying to disprove the miracles and thereby, try to disprove the existence of unimaginable God.

A true scientist and a true philosopher are one and the same keeping silent about the unimaginable God and accept the existence of unimaginable events (miracles) performed by the devotees and human incarnations. Once you accept the existence of unimaginable God and the existence of unimaginable events, you have to accept the validity of the scripture spoken by the unimaginable God. The scripture says that the unimaginable God created energy in an unimaginable way and the entire world is manifested from the energy in an imaginable way.
alan1000
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:03 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by alan1000 »

Depends what you mean by "neutral". (As usual, the failure to define initial concepts opens the way to ambiguity and confusion).

If by "God" you mean some kind of Creator or Intelligent Designer, science dismisses both concepts. The existence of complex processess is evidence, it is said, of Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Designer is self-evidently a complex process. So who designed the Intelligent Designer?

This line of religious argument was adequately exploded in the 19th C, and I don't have the patience to pursue it any further here.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by Walker »

"science dismisses both concepts."
I've heard there are plenty of scientists who believe in God.

Are they fake scientists?
Shouldn't they be moderated out of the scientific community?

Wasn't Einstein partial to God?
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by popeye1945 »

Religion makes absurd scientific declarations about the world such that it is impossible for science to be neutral about scientific nonsense.
dattaswami
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by dattaswami »

alan1000 wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 3:45 pm Depends what you mean by "neutral". (As usual, the failure to define initial concepts opens the way to ambiguity and confusion).

If by "God" you mean some kind of Creator or Intelligent Designer, science dismisses both concepts. The existence of complex processess is evidence, it is said, of Intelligent Design. The Intelligent Designer is self-evidently a complex process. So who designed the Intelligent Designer?

This line of religious argument was adequately exploded in the 19th C, and I don't have the patience to pursue it any further here.
God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God. God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa). To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

The unimaginable God is beyond space. Space has three dimensions called length, breadth, and height. Time also is an associated coordinate of space since, without space, time cannot exist. When we take the state of unimaginable God, He is beyond space and time, due to which He is unimaginable. Since He is beyond time, you should not ask Me about the time in which He existed alone without creation. His state, which is beyond the four-dimensional space-time, exists even now and it will exist even in the future. His state continues forever even after the creation of this world and even though He enters the world in the form of Incarnations. It is a wonder how God remains unchanged in spite of incarnating in multiple forms, and it is possible due to His inherent unimaginable nature. This is described in the Gita as “Avibhaktam vibhakteṣu”

First, God created space, which is subtle inert energy. Space and the subtle energy are one and the same since the Veda says in one place that God created space (Ātmana ākāśaḥ...), and in another place, it also says that God created energy (Tat tejo’sṛjata...). Regarding the creation of the other elements and items of creation, a chain of cause and effect is described. It is told that from space arose air, and from air arose fire and so on. God is said to be the direct cause only for space and energy. Since both space and energy are separately said to be the first creations, which were directly created by God, they must be one and the same.

It means that space, even though it appears to be ‘nothing’ is actually ‘something’. It is subtle energy. The visible gross energy is derived from the invisible subtle energy by the reduction in its frequency. We know that visible light is electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation of higher frequencies such as ultraviolet light, x-rays and gamma rays, is invisible to us but it is detected by scientific instruments. The subtle energy has even higher frequencies than x-rays or gamma rays and it is not only invisible to us but it is also undetected by scientific instruments. However, it is not nothing, since it is basically energy.

Just because something is invisible to your eyes or to scientific instruments, it does not mean it is ‘nothing’ or non-existent. It can exist even though it is invisible. Ancient Indian logic speaks about the quantization of space. They described ākāśa paramāṇus, which can roughly be translated as ‘atoms of space’. It clearly indicates that the ancient Indian philosophers knew that space, being one of the five elements, is something. Science also speaks about the bending of space, which suggests that space is something. It is possible that all of creation disappears yet space alone remains. Space has its own independent existence. Space need not disappear along with matter as some scientists think.

God wanted to create this world and He created space or subtle energy as the first item. Without space, creation cannot exist even though space can exist without creation. God wanted to express Himself to the souls, which were to be created in the future. So, He created a divine energetic body containing a divine energetic soul. Both the energetic soul and body together are called as the energetic being. The unimaginable God merged with this first energetic being permanently to become the First Energetic Incarnation called Datta. Datta means ‘given’ or ‘expressed’ for the sake of souls. Datta is known by many names including Hiraṇyagarbha, Nārāyaṇa, Sadāśiva, Īśvara, and Father of heaven.

The first Energetic Incarnation occupies a certain amount of space from the point of view of its body and soul. The soul too is a form of energy and it requires space for its existence. Thus, the first Energetic Incarnation needs some amount of subtle energy for the creation of its body and soul. A part of the subtle energy, which is the first item created by God, is used for this purpose. Even in the final dissolution, this space occupied by the first Energetic Incarnation does not disappear because this First Incarnation is eternal. This holy space is called the ultimate space or parama vyoma. It is called ultimate or parama since it will not disappear even if the entire creation disappears.

Actually, in the final dissolution, the world only goes from its gross state into a subtle or hidden state called avyaktam. A movie is projected on the screen in a movie theater during the show. This is like the gross state of creation. When the show is over, the movie is no longer projected on the screen, but it remains in a subtle form in the film reel. This is like the subtle state of creation during dissolution.

Not only does the first Energetic Incarnation called Hiraṇyagarbha or Brahmā remain during the dissolution, but His abode called Brahma Loka also does not disappear. In other words, space never disappears. It is space which contains Brahma Loka and the rest of creation in a subtle state. It is this ultimate space that is mentioned in the Veda through the words “Parame vyoman...”. Brahma Loka also exists in its gross state after final dissolution and can be called as parama vyoma. The space occupied by the creation in subtle state, after final dissolution, is called as vyoma or space.
dattaswami
Posts: 652
Joined: Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:42 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by dattaswami »

Walker wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:33 pm
"science dismisses both concepts."
I've heard there are plenty of scientists who believe in God.

Are they fake scientists?
Shouldn't they be moderated out of the scientific community?

Wasn't Einstein partial to God?
Einstein was a believer in God.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by Walker »

dattaswami wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:37 am
Walker wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:33 pm
"science dismisses both concepts."
I've heard there are plenty of scientists who believe in God.

Are they fake scientists?
Shouldn't they be moderated out of the scientific community?

Wasn't Einstein partial to God?
Einstein was a believer in God.
I thought I've heard something about that once or twice.

Interesting.

Well, until there's some weak attempt to invalidate Einstein as a scientist, I suppose that's sufficient evidence to invalidate the unsupported declaration, based on belief and not empirical evidence, that "science dismisses both concepts."

I mean, Einstein is like Mr. Science. But hey, maybe he was neutral and not wearing his Mr. Science hat when he thought about God.

That kind of reminds me of what folks say about The Climate Emergency! The Climate Emergency! They say that there's a consensus among scientists that there is The Climate Emergency! And, they say that the science about this emergency, is settled. Couldn't be further from the truth.

These climate folks who say that are not scientists, are they.

True science dismisses the concept of settled science about so complex a phenomenon 100 years hence.

Take Yoga, for instance. There's a real science, codified into cause and effect by Patanjali the scientist, subject to experimental proofs, and what's interesting is that folks doubt that he even ever existed, just like they doubt many shining lights of the past and chalk their legends and evidence of them up to, mythology.
User avatar
Cerveny
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:35 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by Cerveny »

Walker wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:55 am
dattaswami wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 5:37 am
Walker wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 5:33 pm
I've heard there are plenty of scientists who believe in God.

Are they fake scientists?
Shouldn't they be moderated out of the scientific community?

Wasn't Einstein partial to God?
Einstein was a believer in God.
I thought I've heard something about that once or twice.

Interesting.



Take Yoga, for instance. There's a real science, codified into cause and effect by Patanjali the scientist, subject to experimental proofs, and what's interesting is that folks doubt that he even ever existed, just like they doubt many shining lights of the past and chalk their legends and evidence of them up to, mythology.
There is a phenomenon of "enlightenment/initiation" for which current science does not have an adequate explanation. A qualitative, irreversible, immediate unconditional change of consciousness can be the result of loneliness, deprivation, meditation and autogenic training...
Last edited by Cerveny on Sun Dec 04, 2022 8:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by Harbal »

dattaswami wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:56 pm
[For intellectuals] Note: This article is meant for intellectuals only
How serious would the consequences be were a non-intellectual to read it? :?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Science is neutral about God

Post by Walker »

Cerveny wrote: Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:02 pm There is a phenomenon of "enlightenment/initiation" for which current science does not have an adequate explanation. A qualitative, irreversible, immediate unconditional change of consciousness can be the result of deprivation, meditation and autogenic training...
Self-enquiry after decades of mind preparation via meditative practices, and their effects, also does the trick. The effect of the self-enquiry is akin to pricking a balloon that is stretched tight with accumulation.

But, that may have been what you said.
Post Reply