Thread: is there any mention of science in the new testament?

Greetings forum members,


I would like to discuss the idea that Jesus may have tried to teach a type of "science" to his disciples, a science that has escaped our attention.

I don't know if he did, but does anyone know if he did, if he tried, if his stories about how people "perceive" one another were relevant to a type of "cause and effect" science of interaction.

Is there any material one can investigate that could allow one to investigate the possibility Jesus was teaching was teaching a fundamental science.


(thanks for any input)

My quest here is simple: why assume Jesus as a God alone of faith, for as God is he not also a God of science?

You might want to look in the Non-canonical gospels as well. While some were tossed for well reasoned arguments, like clear origin centuries after Jesus dies, others were tossed for silly and irrational reasons like "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life;"

In any case, I think that any-half god who wanted to teach people how to reach the truth would have made effective reasoning including science an important part of his message.

i do know that drag racing was mentioned in the old testament:

'and moses and aaron dragged their rods across the desert.'

I always took that to mean that they were well hung.

i have a clean mind.

You do? But I thought you'd read the bible...

From what I gather of the New Testament, Jesus spoke in parables. Not only that, he made direct references to how people "perceive" one another. "Metaphors" and "perception" together indicate that Jesus was describing a type of "logic of perception". Could a science come from a logic of perception?





Any ideas on that front?
Is there anyone doing research into a science of perception that could explain how we fundamentally perceive space-time, for instance?

Quest

I think you may be indulging in wishful thinking in suggesting Christ as a scientist. He was not. His focus was on faith, rather than objective evidence. Indeed, there was nothing like science as we know it at the time. The nearest was the teaching of Aristotle, nearly 500 years earlier, and his teachings were definitely not science as we perceive it in the 21st Century.

I am not religious, but I respect the teachings of Jesus Christ (or Yeshua ben Yosef, to give him his true name) as revealing a code of ethics way ahead of his time. However, he was not a scientist. The first person to write something that is similar to true science was Francis Bacon in the 17th Century.

Jesus did teach faith, but as a primary directive. My question was, "is there a code in the new testament essential to a type of perfect reasoning that allows one to formulate theories of science". "Did Jesus open our eyes sufficiently to enable us to use that perception to grasp an ultimate theory of space-time"?

If Jesus did teach a type of science, it was a logic of perception, of what is real and what is not, a logic that, and correct me if I am wrong, would allow us to understand the "all things" better. Understandably in this day and age, scientists would not acknowledge that, the masonary of christ, the idea that Jesus set the wheels in motion via a logic of perception for us to "perfect" ourselves ansd the world we construct around us.

I find comparative religion a very interesting field, although I admit to being far from expert. The various founders of religions were all people of their own time, and people of their own culture, and period of history. Their teachings reflect that.

For example : Mohammed was living in a tribal environment, with many strange religions. There was a lot of fighting between different religious groups, and those who lost the fight would often also lose their religion (or their life). Hence Islam contains teachings related to fighting for the faith.

Jesus, however, lived under Roman occupation, and the lesson of those who rebelled was pure futility. Fighting against the Romans led simply to suffering. Jesus taught a faith of peace and acceptance, with forgiveness as a big part of the faith. Fighting is quite contrary to his teachings.

Science, in the same way, is a product of our times. Since the Dark Ages, humanity has learned that the path to knowledge is via empirical evidence. Isaac Newton, one of the first true scientists claimed he saw so far because he stood "on the shoulders of giants". This is an acceptance of the fact that he, and hence his scientific teachings, were also a product of his time and place. Science came into being because the time was right, and the background to science had been built due to the work of many who had studied and learned how to use empirical work.

Jesus was in the wrong place and time to teach any form of science as we know it today.

Excellent answer.


And so if Jesus were alive today, how would explain "science"?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Jesus did teach faith, but as a primary directive. My question was, "is there a code in the new testament essential to a type of perfect reasoning that allows one to formulate theories of science". "Did Jesus open our eyes sufficiently to enable us to use that perception to grasp an ultimate theory of space-time"?

If Jesus did teach a type of science, it was a logic of perception, of what is real and what is not, a logic that, and correct me if I am wrong, would allow us to understand the "all things" better. Understandably in this day and age, scientists would not acknowledge that, the masonary of christ, the idea that Jesus set the wheels in motion via a logic of perception for us to "perfect" ourselves ansd the world we construct around us.

I agree with skeptic that this is wishful thinking or at least carrying the religious tendency to see meaning and patterns in things to a little bit of an extreme. I have talked about about the connection between Christianity and science before and as I said then, the only real question was whether the religion allowed a rational approach long enough for science to gain the required momentum. But if we are going to look for the key rational developments that led to modern science then there is absolutely no doubt that ancient Greece made far far more of a contribution to that than Jesus, Judaism or Christianity.

I agreed with skeptic in that he properly defined the time Jesus lived in, and how back then science was more steeped religious rites. The science of jesus's time "was" religion.

Today, I think we have a long way to go if we don't explain the process of how we use our perception as a way to arrange ideas of space-time.

Why, for instance, in every contemporary theory of spacce-time do we omit the basic fact in our equations that we are using our perception to derive our theories?

Certain cultures and beliefs make mention of a type of primordial mind from which all things come, all explanations of reality. Is not that something science should also acknowledge, that from an ignorant and primordial mind comes ideas of the universe, of reality? Is not that the very process of modern science, mainly using a primitive mind to develop itself with theories and ideas of the laws of the universe?





The science Jesus promoted was a "theory of all things" of Judaic belief while befriending all things pagan........setting the wheels in motion, being the FORCE for, a more ultimate understanding of reality, because of his ability to embrace all things. Without jesus' taught ability to embrace all things, a complete understanding of reality would not be possible.

Why scientists today therefore do not embrace the idea of a primordial consciousness from which all ideas of reality spring is beyond me......because they had a mind of ignorance many years ago that used to fashion their understanding of reality with. That is a process they do not recognise though as a process of "science". Strange.

Science, of course, is also a product of the culture, place and time in which scientists live. However, scientists also operate by certain 'rules'. These include an attempt not to operate under pre-judged assumptions, and to base their ideas upon empirical evidence that can be tested.

Of course, since scientists are people, they fail to do this a lot of the time. However, since other scientists are also people and are jealous of new ideas, those ideas get criticized big time. If the ideas do not stand up, they get knocked over. Thus, ideas that do not have a firm foundation of empirical data, and which cannot stand up to repeated testing, do not last. The ideas that DO survive are strong, and make up the structure of what we now call modern science.

If Jesus lived today???
I think that he would be a very rational person, and would produce teachings that operated within the bounds laid down by strong science. Jesus of 2000 years ago was concerned mainly with ideas of religion and human emotion and human behaviour. Assuming that Jesus today would have the same centre to his life, he would teach a code of ethics that included respect for science and scientific truth, along with his famous two rules.

Of course, I am speculating and I am often wrong.....

With all you presented, I hope others agree.

The big problem though with the idea of how science can come from faith, is accepting an ultimate assumption. That ultimate assumption that science decides not to address, because it simply can't be proven, is that there exists a primordial consciousness from which all things come.

If for instance there exists a theory for space-time that uses a basic assumption of the primordial consciousness and uses that basic assumption to explain a grand unified theory of space-time, would the science community "accept" that theory because it explained how all the pieces could fit together, or deny it because the basic premise of the primordial consciousness could not be proven itself?

Quest

By 'primordial consciousness', I assume you are talking about some kind of image of God? Can science accept such as idea? Sure! However, science is based on objectively derived empirical evidence. If such evidence is gained, and is strong enough, then scientists will accept it. To date, no such evidence exists.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

With all you presented, I hope others agree.

The big problem though with the idea of how science can come from faith, is accepting an ultimate assumption. That ultimate assumption that science decides not to address, because it simply can't be proven, is that there exists a primordial consciousness from which all things come.

If for instance there exists a theory for space-time that uses a basic assumption of the primordial consciousness and uses that basic assumption to explain a grand unified theory of space-time, would the science community "accept" that theory because it explained how all the pieces could fit together, or deny it because the basic premise of the primordial consciousness could not be proven itself?

What I meant to highlight is that the primordial consciousness can't be proven, that there is no evidence for it, especially in a godless world........but that the use of a primordial consciousness in a grand theory of space-time allows for the completeness of a theory of space-time by acting, the primordial consciousness, as a platform to view the complete space-time theory from. There would be no proof for the primordial consciousness other than by default.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Why, for instance, in every contemporary theory of spacce-time do we omit the basic fact in our equations that we are using our perception to derive our theories?

How not? I not only think that this doesn't fit with the nature of scientific inquiry but I don't think it even makes sense - that is, it cannot be clearly formulated. Our theories of space-time are mathematical theories. Are you suggesting that there is a mathematical theory of consciousness? I do not believe that there is or that there can be. The mathematical view of the world is a narrow tinted window and the proposition that it can describe the totality of reality is absurd.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Certain cultures and beliefs make mention of a type of primordial mind from which all things come, all explanations of reality. Is not that something science should also acknowledge, that from an ignorant and primordial mind comes ideas of the universe, of reality?

Science bows before the objectively observable and measurable not before imaginations, philosophies and beliefs.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Is not that the very process of modern science, mainly using a primitive mind to develop itself with theories and ideas of the laws of the universe?

No, not that I have the least idea WHAT you are talking about.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

The science Jesus promoted was a "theory of all things" of Judaic belief while befriending all things pagan........setting the wheels in motion, being the FORCE for, a more ultimate understanding of reality, because of his ability to embrace all things.

Not according to the definition of "theory" in modern science, he did not. PLEASE, however much the man of today wishes to make the scientist his new priest and wizard, Jesus was NOT a scientist.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Without jesus' taught ability to embrace all things, a complete understanding of reality would not be possible.

Set aside the fact that this claim is HIGHLY debatable, modern science does not deal in understanding reality as a whole, that is the task of a much maligned branch of philosophy called metaphysics.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Why scientists today therefore do not embrace the idea of a primordial consciousness from which all ideas of reality spring is beyond me......because they had a mind of ignorance many years ago that used to fashion their understanding of reality with. That is a process they do not recognise though as a process of "science". Strange.

I can well comprehend your disatisfaction with attitudes that the scientific worldview represents the totality of reality. This is the premise of metaphysical naturalism which I certainly do not accept. However, I believe that this unintelligible nonsense you speak is derived from your highly subjective impressions of things of which I see little understanding expressed in your posts. But, one does not have to accept the naturalist premise to understand that science is not only a valuable source of insight but also damn useful. The real problem is trying to comprehend the world within a one dimensional mind set and thus thinking that you have to force science to be and do what it is not meant to do.

Thanks Mitch.



ps
A primitive mind is one which you start with in life. Basically, our development in the womb has us start at very primitive beginnings. It develops though as it gains education, information relevant to one's context of development in history (you know, like we have learnt something by now as adults). Then again, some people are born into this world thinking they know everything. We can't doubt that.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

A primitive mind is one which you start with in life. Basically, our development in the womb has us start at very primitive beginnings. It develops though as it gains education, information relevant to one's context of development in history (you know, like we have learnt something by now as adults). Then again, some people are born into this world thinking they know everything. We can't doubt that.

I can see what you are talking about now. But I have a fundamental disagreement with that point of view. You see I believe that the mind is a form of life in its own right. Life is a phenomenon of self organization of dynamic structures. In the case of the mind, these are dynamic information structures. So I believe that body provides the proper environment for the inception of mental life and thus what you call the primitive mind is part of this proper environment - conditions of stimulation for this self-organization to occur. Thus I do NOT agree that we have a primitive mind that grows into the mind we have. I suppose that if you simply look at the biological aspect you can see it that way - the undeveloped brain of the infant that develops into the mature adult brain by the addition of neural connections. But for that matter, you can say the same thing of your home computer as its hard drive slowly fills up with files and software. I just think that view kind of misses out on what is really going on - like describing the writing of a novel (50 years ago) as the addition of ink to paper.

Ok.

If therefore it is possible for the human "mind" to theorise properly all the laws of space-time as a holistic entity, could not therefore space-time be considered as a "mind" if indeed a mind can use all it's faculties to formulate the meaning of all space-time as a holistic construct, much like the mind is a holistic construct?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If therefore it is possible for the human "mind" to theorise properly all the laws of space-time as a holistic entity, could not therefore space-time be considered as a "mind" (if indeed a mind can use all it's faculties to formulate the meaning of all space-time as a holistic construct), much like the mind is a holistic construct?

I am not sure whether this is a too convoluted a hypothetical whose meaning is therefore suspect, or just obviously wrong. It depends on what you mean be the words you are using.

In physics we envision a theory of everything that treats space-time and all that is in it as a whole in the sense of being geometrical contruct so that all the laws of physics and the objects in physics are implicit in its geometrical structure. But again this is a mathematical construct to model our objective observation and measurements, and besides what I said before about this I will also add that there is nothing life-like in such a construct.

"Mathematical" can be considered a synonym of "mechanical" and consequently an antonym of "life", and since mind is form of life, that would make the universe very far from what a mind is. What I can see on the other hand in the mathematical structure of the universe is a design for the specific purpose of giving birth to life. Therefore what I see in the universe is not a mind but the construct of a mind for a definite purpose. In fact, the design which I see is one whose most particular purpose is to set it apart from the designer in order to rather paradoxically make life possible. If the mathematical nature of the universe where the whole story and this system of mathematical laws were causally closed then I do not think life would be possible, but quantum physics and chaotic dynamics point to the way in which this system is not causally closed.

On the other hand, I believe that there is a non-physical aspect to reality which is not a part of the is geometric space-time construction, for which I use the word "spirit" or "spiritual". I envision spiritual things (or spiritual forms of energy) as being governed by their own nature much in the same way that the entire physical universe is governed by its own nature. And this is the distinction between the physical portion of our being, which is a part of the physical universe and thus subject to its nature (laws and events), and the spiritual portion of our being which is not.

Now this living entity which I have previously called the mind is just as much a physical entity as is our body and also subject to the nature of the physical universe. The role I see for the spirit is much more subtle than the mind, having to do with ownership/responsibility we assign to those events in the physical universe that we call our thoughts and actions.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If therefore it is possible for the human "mind" to theorise properly all the laws of space-time as a holistic entity, could not therefore space-time be considered as a "mind" (if indeed a mind can use all it's faculties to formulate the meaning of all space-time as a holistic construct), much like the mind is a holistic construct?

I am not sure whether this is a too convoluted a hypothetical whose meaning is therefore suspect, or just obviously wrong. It depends on what you mean be the words you are using.

In physics we envision a theory of everything that treats space-time and all that is in it as a whole in the sense of being geometrical contruct so that all the laws of physics and the objects in physics are implicit in its geometrical structure. But again this is a mathematical construct to model our objective observation and measurements, and besides what I said before about this I will also add that there is nothing life-like in such a construct.

"Mathematical" can be considered a synonym of "mechanical" and consequently an antonym of "life", and since mind is form of life, that would make the universe very far from what a mind is. What I can see on the other hand in the mathematical structure of the universe is a design for the specific purpose of giving birth to life. Therefore what I see in the universe is not a mind but the construct of a mind for a definite purpose. In fact, the design which I see is one whose most particular purpose is to set it apart from the designer in order to rather paradoxically make life possible. If the mathematical nature of the universe where the whole story and this system of mathematical laws were causally closed then I do not think life would be possible, but quantum physics and chaotic dynamics point to the way in which this system is not causally closed.

On the other hand, I believe that there is a non-physical aspect to reality which is not a part of the is geometric space-time construction, for which I use the word "spirit" or "spiritual". I envision spiritual things (or spiritual forms of energy) as being governed by their own nature much in the same way that the entire physical universe is governed by its own nature. And this is the distinction between the physical portion of our being, which is a part of the physical universe and thus subject to its nature (laws and events), and the spiritual portion of our being which is not.

Now this living entity which I have previously called the mind is just as much a physical entity as is our body and also subject to the nature of the physical universe. The role I see for the spirit is much more subtle than the mind, having to do with ownership/responsibility we assign to those events in the physical universe that we call our thoughts and actions.

Are you sure you have read Roger Penrose and "shadows of the mind"? He would argue that a model for perception would exist as a geometrical construct. As much as we aim to hypothesise reality as a holistic entity, so too he argues can the mind the regarded also as a holistic geometrical entity. Now, following on from that, could you clarify your thinking to address the possibility of a primordial mind from which all things came (in theory), and it's great potential use to modern day physics.

This is speculation. I think what you are doing is to try to find a way to introduce the concept of God by a roundabout means, and call it scientific.

The simple truth is that the existence or non existence of God (as creator) is unproven, and cannot at this point in time be proven. That does not mean He exists or does not. Just that we do not know, in any scientific sense.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Are you sure you have read Roger Penrose and "shadows of the mind"? He would argue that a model for perception would exist as a geometrical construct. As much as we aim to hypothesise reality as a holistic entity, so too he argues can the mind the regarded also as a holistic geometrical entity.

By training and education, I am a theoretical physicist, which you could say is another name for a mathematician-physicist, and it is for this reason you may see some similarities of language. I not only haven't read Roger Penrose but I certainly don't agree with what you are attributing to him. However reading the Wikipedia article on Roger Penrose, I do not see anything objectionable especially in the big picture, which is all I get accurately from this article anyway. Like him, I do see a connection between consciousness and quantum physics.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Now, following on from that, could you clarify your thinking to address the possibility of a primordial mind from which all things came (in theory), and it's great potential use to modern day physics.

This primordial mind of yours is apparently much more than I previously thought - not just the biological conditions stimulating the self organization of information which is human mental life, but your concept seems as skeptic is suggesting is indeed an approach to the concept of God, in which case I do not think the term "primordial mind" is very appropriate at all. I believe in an infinite God who created this universe by an act of will and design for the specific purpose of bringing life (living things) into being for much the same reason and motivation that someone chooses to become a parent.

But the main point here is that I do not think that science provides the proper language or methodology for the study of God which I cannot see as being any different from what you are calling "primordial mind", except in the attributes you may attribute to it. I absolutely deny that any version of God is of any use whatsover in modern day physics.

-----------------------------------

Originally Posted by skeptic

This is speculation. I think what you are doing is to try to find a way to introduce the concept of God by a roundabout means, and call it scientific.

If you are responding to my post then I would say this is an unfounded accusation which is worse than speculation. However I suspect you are responding to 'Quest, in which case I would agree with you to some degree, with the following caution: most people do not clearly understand the distinction between science and religion mistaking the largely philosophical presentations of scientific results in public media for science and as a result it is only natural for them to use the language they hear in these programs to describe their own subjective perception of the world. The real language of modern science is mathematics and objective observation in which there is no room for expressing such subjective perceptions.

Originally Posted by skeptic

The simple truth is that the existence or non existence of God (as creator) is unproven, and cannot at this point in time be proven.

No the existence of God cannot be objectively proven and I would in fact absolutely deny that anything whose existence has or ever will be objectively proven could in fact be God.

Originally Posted by skeptic

That does not mean He exists or does not.

I take it that you meant to say either "That mean He exists or does not" or "That does not mean He exists and does not mean He does not exist."

Originally Posted by skeptic

Just that we do not know, in any scientific sense.

The question cannot even be formulated as a proper scientific hypothesis, that is not if by "God" you mean anything which I could identify with what I call God.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Are you sure you have read Roger Penrose and "shadows of the mind"? He would argue that a model for perception would exist as a geometrical construct. As much as we aim to hypothesise reality as a holistic entity, so too he argues can the mind the regarded also as a holistic geometrical entity.

By training and education, I am a theoretical physicist, which you could say is another name for a mathematician-physicist, and it is for this reason you may see some similarities of language. I not only haven't read Roger Penrose but I certainly don't agree with what you are attributing to him. However reading the Wikipedia article on Roger Penrose, I do not see anything objectionable especially in the big picture, which is all I get accurately from this article anyway. Like him, I do see a connection between consciousness and quantum physics.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Now, following on from that, could you clarify your thinking to address the possibility of a primordial mind from which all things came (in theory), and it's great potential use to modern day physics.

This primordial mind of yours is apparently much more than I previously thought - not just the biological conditions stimulating the self organization of information which is human mental life, but your concept seems as skeptic is suggesting is indeed an approach to the concept of God, in which case I do not think the term "primordial mind" is very appropriate at all. I believe in an infinite God who created this universe by an act of will and design for the specific purpose of bringing life (living things) into being for much the same reason and motivation that someone chooses to become a parent.

But the main point here is that I do not think that science provides the proper language or methodology for the study of God which I cannot see as being any different from what you are calling "primordial mind", except in the attributes you may attribute to it. I absolutely deny that any version of God is of any use whatsover in modern day physics.

The "primordial mind" is not "primitive" mind, as could be easily mistinterpreted. The "primeordial" mind is the "basic and most fundamental and all reaching" mind, the mind "canvass" upon which all things can be theorised.

Even though Roger Penrose fails to get to the final step of an ultimate theory of space-time, his work is worth the read nonetheless. It's inspiring, a cocktail of possibilities not yet officially properly organised to explain how a primordial consciousness can be the tapestry upon which a holistoc theory of space-time can be painted.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

The "primordial mind" is not "primitive" mind, as could be easily mistinterpreted. The "primeordial" mind is the "basic and most fundamental and all reaching" mind, the mind "canvass" upon which all things can be theorised.

Sure but as we are basically discussing issues of theology I have other objections to yours. At the very root of my objection is that I see the design of life as primarily motivated by God's purpose to create that which is other than Himself as an object of love. This is why I reject pantheistic and panentheistic ideas that what God has created is a part of Himself.

This however generates a fundamental question of what it actually means to be other than God (not a part of God), because the only meaningful distinction I can see is in terms of that which He has absolute dominion over. If all thing are absolutely subject to His will then I cannot see how we can give any substance to a claim that anything is outside the mind of God and thus in any way substantially different from a dream or figment of His imagination. I do not find such a theology to be logically consistent with my experience of existence. It seems to me that this would make the problems of evil and human free will completely unsolvable.

However such would logically seem to be the natural state of an omnipotent being, and this causes me to think about how God would be able to create something which is not simply a part of Himself. I found the answer in the concept of automation, which is the idea that you can create things that operate according to independent automatic rules. As a first step in this direction, I believe that God created the angels so that they would act according the the rules he created in them. But clearly that is not much of an independence, for such beings would still remain no more or less than what God created them to be, and thus would still ultimately an extension of His will.

However if it is not just behavior that comes from these independent rules but a things very existence then the whole of its being would be independent of the will of God. And thus from the idea of automation we have the essence of life and free will, because the result is that living things instead of being designed by God arise in a self organizing fashion, which means that what they are is always in some portion a product of its own choices. It means that living things unlike the angels must start out very small and primitive and learn everything for themselves. This does not does not mean that God is not involved, in fact it actually means that God is even more involved, because it means God's creative work is ongoing. It does mean however that as far as living things are concerned God's creative involvement is not one of a designer but one of shepherd and teacher, providing right environment to protect and stimulate development.

This should bring to mind the computer simulation called "the game of life" also known of as cellular automata, because in a similar manner it sets up an environment in which simple self organizing phenomena can occur. Anyway this points out a major advantage of this theological theory in that it explains quite well the reason why God would create the universe which is governed by the mathematical laws of physics for that is exactly the requirement of this whole idea of life in the first place. It also explains why objective scientific observations all support the hypothesis that life has evolved rather than been designed.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Even though Roger Penrose fails to get to the final step of an ultimate theory of space-time, his work is worth the read nonetheless. It's inspiring, a cocktail of possibilities not yet officially properly organised to explain how a primordial consciousness can be the tapestry upon which a holistoc theory of space-time can be painted.

It is apparent to me that your idea of "holistic theory" is not a scientific theory but a theological/philosophical theory just as is my own theory above. Knowing the difference I feel no need to make any pretence that my theory is anything other than a theological one and I only use scientific concepts as they are useful in explaining what I mean and not to disguise this fact. Until you see the difference between what you are doing and what constitutes true scientific inquiry you will continue to evoke the kind of hostile reactions in you see in skeptic and to some degree myself as well. Instead you can enjoy as I do the more simple reaction of plain disinterest. LOL

The primordial mind is not necessarily "God". "God" is how ever people define an "ultimate" mind to be through their own free faith-filled perception.

You often jump to generalisations with each of my statements no matter how acutlely you try to pick my arguments apart.

I may also therefore use the "LOL", ya?




If an ultimate exists, an ultimate mind, a "God", it is as though (one may hope) that such a God is looking for companions who understand the ultimate mind from the "primordial" preschool level all the way to the top.

Does such a God exist in person?

Maybe, if that God discovered the meaning of the entire system from the primordial level all the way to the top, and waited long enough to think he/she was the only one to discover that "ultimate" understanding without being instructed to understand it by anyone else. And that could be a key danger to ignoring someone who actually has the ultimate theory, namely they could one day be regarded as a God for being so all-knowing without anyone else knowing of the all-knowing theory of space-time despite people given ample time and opportunity to understand that theory.

LOL.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

The primordial mind is not necessarily "God".

Ok lets explore what you mean by that. You mean that there can be two entities, one which you call the the primordial mind and another which you would call God. But in a previous post, you demanded that I clarify my "thinking to address the possibility of a primordial mind from which all things came". That is what makes identifies this primordial mind of yours with God from my perspective. Now I would consider the most necessary attribute that identifies God as God to be His goodness and that which makes Him worthy of worship since I would not call anything else God. But it is difficult for me to consider with any seriousness a world view like Plato's demiurge which posits either an evil or neutral creator (or origin) of existence, because it would not be sufficient, for I think I would call an ultimately good being that is not the origin or creator a friend rather than God. Thus it sound to me very much like no God at all. I think another neccessary attribute would be an infinite nature for only with such a being can I see a possibility of eternal life.

But anyway to flesh out your thoughts on the matter what is the distinctive quality of this entity (not the origin of existence) that you would call God? And why would the other being, this origin of existence be any kind of mind at all?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

"God" is how ever people define an "ultimate" mind to be through their own free faith-filled perception.

I certainly agree that God is subjectively perceived. And for opinion to become knowledge, faith is required.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

You often jump to generalisations with each of my statements no matter how acutlely you try to pick my arguments apart.

I may also therefore use the "LOL", ya?

Communication is difficult. If you want to succeed at it then keep trying. From my perspective, I don't even see any arguments to pick apart. In any case, it is my general observation that the primary cause of what many people perceive as arguments and disagreement is diverging interests.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If an ultimate exists, an ultimate mind, a "God", it is as though (one may hope) that such a God is looking for companions who understand the ultimate mind from the "primordial" preschool level all the way to the top.

? I see God as a teacher and a creator not a searcher, but perhaps that is what you mean that God is seeking to to teach pople to understand this? Frankly I don't think God is so single minded that He must teach one thing so narrowly defined to all people. The evidence that I see is against it. Thus I would put it in more general terms that God seeks to encourage and stimulate us to realize our greater potential whatever that may be.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Does such a God exist in person?

Not sure what you mean, but I certainly think that the creator of all things does not lack anything which those He has created has. So yes I would say that personhood is something which God has but is not limited to.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Maybe, if that God discovered the meaning of the entire system from the primordial level all the way to the top, and waited long enough to think he/she was the only one to discover that "ultimate" understanding without being instructed to understand it by anyone else.

What you call God sounds more like a competitor or an interesting acquaintance rather than God. Lacking infinitude I see no ultimate significance in such a being.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

And that could be a key danger to ignoring someone who actually has the ultimate theory, namely they could one day be regarded as a God for being so all-knowing without anyone else knowing of the all-knowing theory of space-time despite people given ample time and opportunity to understand that theory.

I don't think I believe in any ultimate theory and I don't think that I would ever regard a finite being as being God. I do not even consider knowledge (or equivalently power) as a necessary attribute of God or in fact an attribute of any great siginificance. It is a God of love that I believe in not a God of knowledge and power.

Make no mistake, I am obsessed with the pursuit of understanding and it has consumed me my entire life. But part of the understanding which I have acheived reveals to me that however much I may be unable to abandon this habitual pursuit of understanding, it is not the most important thing. The most important thing is life. What is life? It is growth, excitement , creativity, love, wonder, challenges, passion, and learning. It is the process itself of becoming which I value most and not any acheivement which it may bring, for it is apparent to me that whatever we may acheive, we can only ask, "what next?" This is precisely why the only God that would seem like God to me would be an infinite one.

Your argument about God appears to ultimately state why God will always be unknown to people, incomprehensible, and thus the ultimate understanding of space-time out of reach.......if indeed God as the entire system of space-time is self-knowing.

Why your quest then, other than the difficulty of the challenge of reaching the infinite and impossible?


(ps, my use of the term "primordial mind" instead of "mind of God" was designed so people could perhaps warm to the idea of an ultimate "god/system perception"....to better relate with the idea. I wasn't being offensive or obscure)

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

By training and education, I am a theoretical physicist, which you could say is another name for a mathematician-physicist

That is what intrigues me the most about you, Mitch. I would opine that if ever there were an authoritative of god, it would come from the rigor and derivatives of a theoretical physicist.

At the very least, it would be something we could all share and understand.

I not only haven't read Roger Penrose but I certainly don't agree with what you are attributing to him. Like him, I do see a connection between consciousness and quantum physics.

But of course, how our brain works in our macro world most certainly must be operating at a quantum level. And, I suspect this is where you'll find your answers about your god, because he too would be operating there, as well.

And, considering that no theist is able to describe his "experiences" with god outside the confines of his consciousness, perhaps that is exactly where your answers lay.

Quite simply then, you have a working hypothesis. God "interacts" with humans at the quantum level somewhere in the consciousness, most likely during the exchange of synaptic neurotransmitters.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Your argument about God appears to ultimately state why God will always be unknown to people, incomprehensible, and thus the ultimate understanding of space-time out of reach.......if indeed God as the entire system of space-time is self-knowing.

I don't see myself making much of an argument any more than I see you doing so, but I agree that there is an implication in what I say that an infinite God would always be in some way beyond comprehension. But I see no identification between God and space-time and therefore your conclusion does not follow in my way of thinking. Space time is a construct designed for a purpose - understandable as an objectively observable finite and limited thing and understandable because its design naturally reflects its purpose. The universe (space-time) is a mathematical construct - a "machine" if you like. It is not alive or aware in any way whatsoever. Nor is the universe an extension of God. Nor are we a conscious extension of the universe.

But in regards to God being incomprehensible, it is only His nature that is incomprehensible but knowing a person is not really about knowing such a thing for it is not those things that really define them but rather what they choose to devote themselves to - what they value. When you realize this, then you come to the conclusion that you can actually know God better that you know anyone else including yourself because God is not complex in the sense of being conflicted with various desires and values at war within Him. His motivation is actually completely pure and other-centered focused on the love of this phenomenon of life and the living things which he has raised up, single mindedly devoted to helping it realize the infinite potential He sees in it.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Why your quest then, other than the difficulty of the challenge of reaching the infinite and impossible?

It is an uncontrollable impulse probably derived from choices and ambition in early childhood to discover the secrets of the universe.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

(ps, my use of the term "primordial mind" instead of "mind of God" was designed so people could perhaps warm to the idea of an ultimate "god/system perception"....to better relate with the idea. I wasn't being offensive or obscure)

Understood.

Originally Posted by (Q)

I not only haven't read Roger Penrose but I certainly don't agree with what you are attributing to him. Like him, I do see a connection between consciousness and quantum physics.

But of course, how our brain works in our macro world most certainly must be operating at a quantum level. And, I suspect this is where you'll find your answers about your god, because he too would be operating there, as well.

And, considering that no theist is able to describe his "experiences" with god outside the confines of his consciousness, perhaps that is exactly where your answers lay.

Quite simply then, you have a working hypothesis. God "interacts" with humans at the quantum level somewhere in the consciousness, most likely during the exchange of synaptic neurotransmitters.

Yes that is the only room you can find in the scientific world-view where there can be interactions with an interactive God, because all else is adequately described by mathematical laws. If you are going to posit some non-physical entity interacting with the world then obviously the causal connection would have to be where the closure of physical causality fails.

Traditional views of the Church don't limit themselves regarding scientific discovery the same way your pet theory of God does.

Maybe you should stick to mainstream faith if indeed you are looking for that elusive if not mind-bending find in the world of theoretical physics?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Traditional views of the Church don't limit themselves regarding scientific discovery the same way your pet theory of God does.

Maybe you should stick to mainstream faith if indeed you are looking for that elusive if not mind-bending find in the world of theoretical physics?

It is science which is restricted to scientific methodology. I am sorry but I do not understand your religion of answering what sounds like scientific question with a nonscientific methodology. Running rough shod over the distinction between science and relgion just doesn't seem very sincere to me. I leave the scientific questions to science and I leave the religious questions to nobody but God Himself (so I am not interested in your advice on the matter). I have a training in science and so that is part of my world view and thus part of the way I see things. If you don't like it, you don't have to read it.

I did try to give you an opportunity to explain your ideas to me better, which is why I asked you, what is the distinctive quality of this entity (not the origin of existence) that you would call God? And also why would the other being, this origin of existence be any kind of mind at all? But since you don't even seem interested in answering questions about your ideas then that's ok, I guess I really don't have any interest in your theory of God-as-space-time, anyway.

Apologies for not answering your questions. I am more preoccupied with what you have to say.

To get to your questions, the God I believe in is one that is also a God of science, and not just faith, a God of faith and science. How is that possible? I believe an all-knowing God would know how space-time works. And that's the really strange things about science today, namely that they do not acknowledge that God could be all-knowing in regard to space-time being understood as a holistic construct imagined/theorised in the mind's eye.

Anyway, that's part of it.

But tell me, what features of your faith stop you from thinking that your God is not also a God of space-time and thus presumably also science?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

To get to your questions, the God I believe in is one that is also a God of science, and not just faith, a God of faith and science. How is that possible?

In my case that does not even make any sense. Science is not something out there in the world, it is a project and activity of human beings trying to understand the world around him with a specific methodology. So the question here is whether God has any place in that methodology and the answer you will get from anyone with trainging in the sciences is an absolutely emphatic NO! I think that modern science was originally created by religious people who saw value in looking for explanations for things other than God and thus modern science became another way of looking at things for people who already had theology to look at things in terms of their relationship with God. To put God into science is thus undo what they have done and to destroy science utterly, saying that there is only theology, and THAT I must oppose most strenuously!

It is the universe and the earth which is out there, NOT science. It is the universe and the earth which are the creation of God, NOT science. Thus, if you allow me to get extremely metaphorical here, the universe and the earth is very much like a "Bible" written in God's own language and mathematics and science is one way of pursuing a translation. The holy scriptures of other relgions might be considered different translation efforts and you are of course free to pursue your own translation however you feel inspired to do so, BUT none of these should be confused with what we call modern science.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I believe an all-knowing God would know how space-time works.

I do too. God created it so He not only knows how it works but why He created it that way. And I believe that we can see the reasons why by studying it, because it is only natural that the design and structure of a created thing should reveal the purpose of its creator in making it.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

And that's the really strange things about science today, namely that they do not acknowledge that God could be all-knowing in regard to space-time being understood as a holistic construct imagined/theorised in the mind's eye.

Because they CANT acknowledge or say anything about God in any way whatsoever. Because if they did, it would NOT BE SCIENCE. It would be theology. AND theology is what YOU are doing when you try to put God back in the equation. GOOD! You SHOULD do that. It means that science is informing your theology just as it informs mine.

BUT if you are expecting the scientists to let your theology inform them in their work then you will fail as long as there is any true scientist left breathing on the planet, and that is the case however many scientists you may buy off, as the creationists do, to betray the principles of science in order participate in whatever propaganda scheme you care to start.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

But tell me, what features of your faith stop you from thinking that your God is not also a God of space-time and thus presumably also science?

Although I do not think it is appropriate for religion or a philosophical/religious methodology to think that it can inform science, science most certainly should inform our philosophical and theological thinking on those issues where science can make determinations. So it is the scientific determination of the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years and the age of the eart as 5 billion years and length of time that life has been developing as 2.5 to 4 billion years, and not the idea of some sects that all of these things are only 6000 years old.

You must first understand that I am a scientist first and always have been. I was not raised Christian but slowly came to that conviction over the last 30 years of my life. You ask me about my faith as if this were equivalent to belief and that makes answering your question more difficult. But anyway, my theological conclusion is that God is an infinite eternal trans-personal being and science makes it clear that the space-time physical universe is a finite mathematical and therefore mechanical inanimate object that came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. From my studies of physics, I have come to the conclusion that it is a product of design for the specific purpose of bringing about the existence of life. The universe is of the nature of a womb and this is consistent with my belief that the universe was created by God for the purpose of creating living beings with free will.

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

To get to your questions, the God I believe in is one that is also a God of science, and not just faith, a God of faith and science. How is that possible?

In my case that does not even make any sense. Science is not something out there in the world, it is a project and activity of human beings trying to understand the world around him with a specific methodology. So the question here is whether God has any place in that methodology and the answer you will get from anyone with trainging in the sciences is an absolutely emphatic NO! I think that modern science was originally created by religious people who saw value in looking for explanations for things other than God and thus modern science became another way of looking at things for people who already had theology to look at things in terms of their relationship with God. To put God into science is thus undo what they have done and to destroy science utterly, saying that there is only theology, and THAT I must oppose most strenuously!

It is the universe and the earth which is out there, NOT science. It is the universe and the earth which are the creation of God, NOT science. Thus, if you allow me to get extremely metaphorical here, the universe and the earth is very much like a "Bible" written in God's own language and mathematics and science is one way of pursuing a translation. The holy scriptures of other relgions might be considered different translation efforts and you are of course free to pursue your own translation however you feel inspired to do so, BUT none of these should be confused with what we call modern science.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I believe an all-knowing God would know how space-time works.

I do too. God created it so He not only knows how it works but why He created it that way. And I believe that we can see the reasons why by studying it, because it is only natural that the design and structure of a created thing should reveal the purpose of its creator in making it.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

And that's the really strange things about science today, namely that they do not acknowledge that God could be all-knowing in regard to space-time being understood as a holistic construct imagined/theorised in the mind's eye.

Because they CANT acknowledge or say anything about God in any way whatsoever. Because if they did, it would NOT BE SCIENCE. It would be theology. AND theology is what YOU are doing when you try to put God back in the equation. GOOD! You SHOULD do that. It means that science is informing your theology just as it informs mine.

BUT if you are expecting the scientists to let your theology inform them in their work then you will fail as long as there is any true scientist left breathing on the planet, and that is the case however many scientists you may buy off, as the creationists do, to betray the principles of science in order participate in whatever propaganda scheme you care to start.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

But tell me, what features of your faith stop you from thinking that your God is not also a God of space-time and thus presumably also science?

Although I do not think it is appropriate for religion or a philosophical/religious methodology to think that it can inform science, science most certainly should inform our philosophical and theological thinking on those issues where science can make determinations. So it is the scientific determination of the age of the universe as 13.7 billion years and the age of the eart as 5 billion years and length of time that life has been developing as 2.5 to 4 billion years, and not the idea of some sects that all of these things are only 6000 years old.

You must first understand that I am a scientist first and always have been. I was not raised Christian but slowly came to that conviction over the last 30 years of my life. You ask me about my faith as if this were equivalent to belief and that makes answering your question more difficult. But anyway, my theological conclusion is that God is an infinite eternal trans-personal being and science makes it clear that the space-time physical universe is a finite mathematical and therefore mechanical inanimate object that came into existence 13.7 billion years ago. From my studies of physics, I have come to the conclusion that it is a product of design for the specific purpose of bringing about the existence of life. The universe is of the nature of a womb and this is consistent with my belief that the universe was created by God for the purpose of creating living beings with free will.

I really don't want to pick apart your work in science and your mutually exclusive faith. Give me some time though to fathom how if there is a God of reality he would not be able to (according to your argument) help you understand the workings of space-time.

Quest
Speaking as an agnostic, let me point out that, if there is a God, he/she/it has never shown any interest even in saving an innocent child from leukemia, much less explaining the secrets of space/time.
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_art...eglect_abs.htm

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

I really don't want to pick apart your work in science and your mutually exclusive faith. Give me some time though to fathom how if there is a God of reality he would not be able to (according to your argument) help you understand the workings of space-time.

I make no such argument. I have no doubt whatsoever that God can help you understand the workings of space-time. I am just saying that no scientist is going to take seriously any message from God on the matter because such a message would be almost completely irrelevant in the context of science. Now if, and this is an enormous IF, the content of your message suggested to him some new line of inquiry into the questions of space time, he may well follow it. But even if he did, he would not attribute any truth to his eventual conclusions based on the source of the inspiration which led him to look in that direction.

I can understand how you paint your God: that such a God from a purely egotistical point of view would not take anyone's word for what "they" would think would represent the constitutional science of reality, and surely that God you believe in would also aim to keep it a secret for personal security reasons. And surely still that God would well-understand the paradox of "a scientist in search of the grand theory of space-time who still has a faith in God" and not make too much of it.

Is that it though, what you are suggesting?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Originally Posted by mitchellmckain

I make no such argument. I have no doubt whatsoever that God can help you understand the workings of space-time. I am just saying that no scientist is going to take seriously any message from God on the matter because such a message would be almost completely irrelevant in the context of science. Now if, and this is an enormous IF, the content of your message suggested to him some new line of inquiry into the questions of space time, he may well follow it. But even if he did, he would not attribute any truth to his eventual conclusions based on the source of the inspiration which led him to look in that direction.

I can understand how you paint your God: that such a God from a purely egotistical point of view would not take anyone's word for what "they" would think would represent the constitutional science of reality, and surely that God you believe in would also aim to keep it a secret for personal security reasons. And surely still that God would well-understand the paradox of "a scientist in search of the grand theory of space-time who still has a faith in God" and not make too much of it.

Is that it though, what you are suggesting?

Are you serious? You are losing me. I talk about what scientists would do and you start talking about how I paint God. What you say about God does not even make any sense. Why would anyone, God included not take a person's word about what they think? Though I suppose God would know if someone was lying. But what does what you or I think about the nature of reality have to do with science unless we use the methods of science? Nothing, science is about methodology and its methods is what make it what it is. Why would God need to take anyones word for anything, especially about what He Himself created??? Why do you talk about God keeping secrets when I said that I have no doubt that God can help understand the workings of space time? I think that God is capable of seeing reality from an infinite different perspectives so yes God would indeed well understand that people can see reality from more than one point of view.

I am sorry but I am having difficulty following the rationality of your responses. What are you trying to say?

Yes, I understand you. You are certain about things. Things you can't agree with you claim you are uncertain about. Your uncertainty doesn't make you interested in finding the result of that which you are uncertain about. You are more willing to label things that start from uncertain to totally wrong.

The issue of this post is simple: is there any evidence for science in the new testament. I was alluding to the possibility that christ may have been a scientist. There is a group of people who claim that christ was the first scientist. They call themselves logically christian scientists. There is a big following of them in the US. Aside from that example, I am merely highlighting that there are two schools of thought on God. One is that God is a mysterious all-knowing being who allows us (whatever) to use science to develop ourselves with our own aim of becomming "all-knowing" about space-time, an all-knowingness different to his/her/it's own, and the other where God tries to inspire and communicate with us to reach that ultimate goal of understanding "wisely" and "timely". You seem to be the first camp, right, the one where the understanding of God is mutually exclusive to our own? Am I missing something?

(One of the common things people do today is to say how "weird" something is, simply because they don't understand it. In psychiatry, "weird" is never a diagnosis, and if anyone wants to make judgments of opinion while finding it diffult to leave a person's personaility behind, understanding DSM IV would be essential clinical reading material in not using the word "weird" or "strange". I am not accusing you of this, but lets' observe the topic and not the egos).

False dichotomy.

Originally Posted by John Galt

False dichotomy.

Atheism is your singularity?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

The issue of this post is simple: is there any evidence for science in the new testament. I was alluding to the possibility that christ may have been a scientist. There is a group of people who claim that christ was the first scientist. They call themselves logically christian scientists. There is a big following of them in the US. Aside from that example, I am merely highlighting that there are two schools of thought on God. One is that God is a mysterious all-knowing being who allows us (whatever) to use science to develop ourselves with our own aim of becomming "all-knowing" about understanding space-time, an all-knowingness different to his/her/it's own, and the other where God tries to inspire and communicate with us to reach that ultimate goal of understanding "wisely" and "timely". You seem to be the first camp, right, the one where the understanding of God is mutually exclusive to our own? Am I missing something?

False dichotomy.

Yes I agree. I guess that is the answer to her question: that what Quest is missing is that there is no dichotomy here. I colored cyan the ideas Quest has of God that I do not share and put my substitutions in brown when needed. Is Quest creating this false dichotomy here because the christian scientists is another anti-science cult? I never realized that, but now that I think about it, it fits perfectly with what I have heard about them.

Seems we got another anti-science missionary like archy. Different cult but same manipulative agenda.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Yes, I understand you. You are certain about things. Things you can't agree with you claim you are uncertain about. Your uncertainty doesn't make you interested in finding the result of that which you are uncertain about. You are more willing to label things that start from uncertain to totally wrong.

No I am not interested in joining your religious cult. So if that is the only purpose for having a discussion with me then you are indeed completely wasting your time. An anti-science agenda such as this will receive a hostile reception here pretty generally and I even suspect that those from other anti-science cults will not give you much of a warm welcome either because that we-got-the-truth approach of all such cults have this with-me-or-against-me attitude going that pretty much precludes the possibility of a discussion between people who think differently.

But if you can stop being such a cookie cutter member of your group and develop an interest in exploring the ideas outside your group then this is a place you can do that and maybe develop an appreciation for the diversity of human thought.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

(One of the common things people do today is to say how "weird" something is, simply because they don't understand it. In psychiatry, "weird" is never a diagnosis, and if anyone wants to make judgments of opinion while finding it diffult to leave a person's personaility behind, understanding DSM IV would be essential clinical reading material in not using the word "weird" or "strange". I am not accusing you of this, but lets' observe the topic and not the egos).

You have lost me again. What are you trying to say is weird or strange?

As for me, I am about as peculiar as they come. What is your point?

Mitch, please calm down. I believe a person represents what they are schooled in. I wasn't chooled in Christian Science, but Medicine (hence the post script).

If I may, your belief in God appears to transcend the normal rules of science, yes?

And so, if God is all-knowing, science will always fall short of an ultimate understanding, according to your rules.



Mitch, the reason why I brought up Christian Science is because it is a different science to contemporary science, but according to your logic it would be the science of your God, if there was a science of God, because it is nothing like standard science.

Think about it.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Mitch, please calm down. I believe a person represents what they are schooled in. I wasn't chooled in Christian Science, but Medicine (hence the post script).

What kind of medicine would that be?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If I may, your belief in God appears to transcend the normal rules of science, yes?

I don't understand the question. God is not a physical entity. My mind IS a physical entity. A belief in God is not a scientific belief. Hopefully one of these answers your question -- maybe.

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

And so, if God is all-knowing, science will always fall short of an ultimate understanding, according to your rules.

???
What is an ultimate understanding? Understanding of what? What rules are you talking about? Modern science is extremely limited in what it can understand.
???

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Mitch, the reason why I brought up Christian Science is because it is a different science to contemporary science, but according to your logic it would be the science of your God, if there was a science of God, because it is nothing like standard science.

That does not make any sense. I guess you are using some other meaning of the word science. When I talk about science I am refering to modern science which is a particular methodology for discovering new and unexpected things about the world. But you seem to be using the word to mean a system of knowledge.

I don't think you can comment on my "logic" whatever that means, because you don't seem to have a clue about how I think, just a lot of assumptions that don't make any sense. Talking about the knowledge of God is pretty speculative, but let me repeat that I believe in an infinite God and in that context talking about God having a particular system of knowledge is a little strange to me. God would have all systems of knowledge, an infinity of them and it would be strange to say that any one of them would be His as opposed to any other.

Aside from the personal remarks, you answered well.

If I may, what do you rely on more, religion or science?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

If I may, what do you rely on more, religion or science?

I would have to ask, rely on for what? and what do you mean by religion?


Which is more important to me? Well clearly my eternal life which is more important so questions concerning this are certainly more important than questions about the nature and structure of the physical universe, for its own sake. But that does not translate directly to relgion being more important than science. My relationship with God is certainly paramount and for that reason I would not and do not fault those who choose God when they feel that they have to choose between the God and science.

I was as I said before, scientist first and you so could say that it is a more fundamental (more primitive) part of myself. Science is part of my perceptual process and I can no more ignore or set it aside than I can set aside my eyes and ears. And yet my eyes and ears are not me, they are just tools I use, and science is not really any different. Thus it is the answers to "relgious" or spiritual questions that have far more to do with who I am.

Which is more relevant to your survival, do you think?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Which is more relevant to your survival, do you think?

Physical survival? The modern American civilian can hardly say that he ever confronts questions of physical survival. The science which I have studied is certainly of no relevance yet I suppose you could say modern lore on healthy food and a healthy life is relevant to the question. In any case, physical survival is rarely a question that religion concerns itself with. Religion is usually more concerned with facing the inevitable reality of physical death.