Some scientists believe that God exists, some don't. Scientists have not proven that God exists or "not exists" via any applicable scientific method, except for one scientist who apparently proved the existence of God, but whose math was way beyond my ability to comprehend; it might have been Kurt Godel but don't quote that, it's too long ago, I can't remember who it was. Google it if you want to know.
NB: yes, it was Kurt Godel. I looked it up out of curiosity. See: Godel's ontological proof
Still, scientists love to argue with each other about the applicability of each other's methods and whatever else might help their own case, each doing their best to prove the improbability of each other's work.
However, the fact that nobody has conclusively used scientific method to prove the existence of God does not mean that God doesn't exist. It merely evokes the possibility the God lies beyod the scope of current scientific method.
I have a friend who's atheistic. He like the ideas of Spinoza who's modus operandi is to poo poo the existence of everything that is not scientifically proven (I wonder if Spinoza could prove his own existence). I tried to explain to my friend that God is not something/someone that can be understood with the mind. Whilst the mind can be useful, in part, to lead us to an understanding of God, ultimately, God can only be understood by the heart.
When the heart is included in scientific method, existence, knowledge and joy all exist within each other. Understanding existence gives one the platform required to understand knowledge (consciousness), and understanding knowledge permits the understanding (experience) of bliss.
Everything exists within bliss, or joy. Joy contains everything else, which exists as a subset, not different from joy, but included within it.
God is everything and God is love are not mutually exclusive statements, and love is so very personal.
Those who are not very aware of it take little notice of consciousness and joy, living as they do within a rather impersonal, materialistic mindset.
Thus we define the mentality of scientific method, which, excluding almost everything of value, needs to take a couple of quantam leaps itself and utilise ALL that's available, especially joy.
Otherwise, science can merely delve within the impersonal fraction of everything, merely a portion of the existence platform, and will never be able to conclusively understand anything since everything is personal.
I found it rather fascinating when I recently read that Stephen Hawking (theoretical physicist) recently mathematically proved that the universe has always existed, and that there never needed to be any original big bang.
Good one Stephen, I read that in the Bhagavad Gita more than 20 years ago. Still when scientists finally conclude their own limitations, God will give them the ability to understand.
Everything always exists because God always exists.
Some mind boggling, but not overly difficult physics from Nassim Haramein (theoretical physicist) also indicate that the smallest, scientifically conceviable distance, that of the wavelength of a photon, when cubed to form the smallest scientifically conceviable space (or volume) contains more energy than all of the mass in the entire universe.
It could be said that Nassim Haramein has defined the structure of the void. Amazing. And the void is impersonal. I can't wait till these guys get to analyzing the structure of joy.
After all, you are, yourself, a person, aren't you?
God is a person, you're a person. Hmmm!
Joy to all beings
11 comments:
Very interesting.
Gödel's proof 'that God exists' is a little tongue-in-cheek, and is an exercise in formal logic applied to a classic piece of 11th Century reasoning (from assumptions).
He doesn't claim it as supportive of a belief in God, let alone claim it as a proof that there is one. But you're right - neither does any (sane) logician or scientist claim to prove that there is not one.
Similarly, neither Stephen Hawking nor any other (sane) scientist has proved that the Universe has always existed. There may be theories that suggest it has (such as Roger Penrose's recent work); and there may be mathematical proofs that it must have given certain (speculative) assumptions, but no more than that.
But the scientific method does not dispense with joy or values! Nor does it claim to be utilitarian of everything. You're right that it is very limited in what it can say regarding the subjective and the personal. I think that's fine.
Personally I find a great deal of joy in science and mathematics, and I know a great many other people who do too. The majority of mathematicians and theoretical physicists are very sensitive to the depth and beauty of their subject. The best word for it is love. And I think that's a thing to rejoice in, not to decry, even if you don't share their aesthetic.
Of course I don't use science or logic to decide my taste in music, or who or what or why I love, or whether anyone else should or should not believe in God. That would be like trying to use a bottle-opener to fry an egg. It's just not what they're for.
Anyway, I'm hoping you'll say more on your comment re Haramein here, since he is - in my view - someone who has blatantly misused scientific values and reasoning and terminology to promote his belief system, his image and his institution. Not, as you say here, a theoretical physicist.
As the subject is heart rather than logic, I'll sign off with two small pieces that bring a tear to my eye: the snow leopard and the pale blue dot.
Best wishes,
Bob
Thanks for the comment Bob
Neither this blog post nor the next by Dr Fly are referring to you, if you made that unfortunate assumption. I don't want you to feel hurt.
I am aware of Godel's purpose, but the common gist is that he proved God to exist.
On your site
http://azureworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/nassim-haramein-fraud-or-sage-part-2.html?showComment=1308718798413#c7604211434399736212
I applaud you for exposing Nassim's liberality but deplore the heavy handed criticism.
I never checked your credentials, nor Haramein's, I accept your scientific background without question, but can I understand your reasoning? I do, however, understand your passion, and I wouldn't have read your blog, nor Nassim's otherwise. I love science (at my own hobby level) but, all too well I understand the cheating mentality of those with something to prove.
I loved the snow leopard and the blue dot, and I appeciate you more than you realise.
Your well wisher
t3rry
Thanks for responding. Don't worry I didn't think you were talking about me :) I did feel you were making some rather dehumanising generalisations about scientists, and I felt I needed to counter them. I used myself and my values as an example, because you were exploring the personal nature of existence in your post.
"The common gist is that he proved God to exist" – I wonder what you mean by "common gist". Gödel was a logician, and I would suggest that it is better to ask a logician what he did, rather than get the gist from popular sources who, like yourself, do not understand what he did. You'll find that logicians and mathematicians will be unanimous in saying that he didn't prove any such thing, as I explained above.
Of course that doesn't prove God doesn't exist either. But I'm assuming you care about what he actually did do, enough to look a little deeper than the lay commentary. Perhaps I'm wrong to assume that, but I felt you did.
I can see that you deplore the heavy-handed criticism, and I understand that. I don't think you have grasped the seriousness of what he is doing, and perhaps you don't wish to. My assertion is that he is a fake, a fraud, and that is a serious thing.
Imagine you knew someone who was very charming and very personable, and they were running an insurance company. Imagine you knew – with absolute certainty – that their understanding of insurance was disastrously flawed, and that they were making entirely false statements about themselves and their activities. Imagine you had contacted them with your concerns, and they had brushed you aside and banned you from contacting them further. What would you feel was appropriate?
Would you feel it was a creative, ethically positive course of action to treat their work with respect and to leave their clients under the illusion that all was well?
I think you can understand why someone would feel it was a positive, helpful, generous act to stand up and speak out against such an institution.
Of course, his clients may be very happy, and they may not want to know what is really going on. What's more, they may entirely trust the charming man's activities, and be extremely mistrustful of someone else claiming that they knew it was fraudulent. What is the best way to deal with dangerously misplaced trust?
It probably won't be pleasant to speak out in this way, but I believe respect for the truth, and the well-being of those seeking it, is more important than respect for people who are intent on manipulating it for their own gain at the expense of those who are putting trust in them.
In many significant areas of life – and this, I believe, is the point of your blog post – there is no means of asserting any kind of objective truth. But this is not the case in science. There are objective truths in science. If I jump out of a high window, I will fall. There's nothing subjective about that. Haramein claims to be a scientist, he claims his work is physics, but none of it is correct, and none of his claims are true. (Aside from the few things that he quotes from textbooks and manages to get right, which is a minority.)
If you love science, as you say you do, then you will appreciate this. If you love science as more than a story-book, I mean. And I believe you when you say you do.
I know my assertions are not going to be taken seriously by some people. I know many people, perhaps including you, will believe that I can't possibly claim to know with certainty that Haramein is a fraud. I've tried to explain as best I can exactly why and how I CAN say this with certainty, but I know some of the concepts are complex, and I know that I'm not able to express it clearly enough to non-scientists so that they can see how much certainty there is in this, or where my claim to certainty comes from.
That is as much as I know how to do.
If you understood the seriousness of the fraud that the charming Mr Haramein is perpetuating on his followers, and if you understand that science is far more than a story-book that can be re-written to suit someone else's personal whims (not to mention their cash-flow and self-aggrandisement), then you may perhaps understand why I have written what I have written.
And while you may choose not to trust me enough to agree with me, perhaps you can do so without "deploring" what I have done. That is all I ask.
All the best,
Bob
Hi again Bob
Godel was just a minor aside in what I have to say. I would love to know what he was on about but time being of the essence, it's hardly a priority. I DO love science and that's why I watched Nassim's film at all, that's why I read your blog and comments.
There IS a means of experiencing objective truth, the proof is in the experience, just as by eating honey one can experience its sweetness. Krishna is very sweet, try it out.
Yes science does have a lot of verifiable claims. Variables such as air pressure, gravitational "force" etc may influence them.
My belief regarding Nassim is that it's not as important to the "little blue dot" as much as you may think and despite your "good" intentions, you may be putting yourself at risk of incurring the same karma as Nassim if he's a rogue.
You can read my wind up on Nassim (before I wander off to something new) in my latest blog post
http://webtide.blogspot.com/2011/06/to-deplore-or-not-to-deplore.html
I deplore your critical attitude BUT I appreciate so many of the posts you've put on your blog. Of course 1 million Jersey cows would be significantly smaller.
We are all children of the universe fumbling our way forward. Pride in our knowledge is useless, everything's so transient.
I wish you well Bob.
t3rry
Terry, I think you've missed the point of what I was trying to say. But that's fair enough - I know I don't always come across too clearly to those who see the world rather differently than I do.
If you have little interest in the difference between honest exploration of this beautiful Universe and someone telling you a nice story, then Haramein is your man. Be as fascinated as you wish.
I'll leave you to praise the pretentiousness of the claims he makes for himself and his work, and to deplore those who point out it out. Make-believe has its place, after all, and some people really don't care where it comes from as long as everyone wuvs each other. That's cool.
Hey Bob
I'll be frank with you. Both of us, and many others know a lot about N H. Googling the name Nassim Haramein yeilds 452000 relevant to somewhat relevant results. Googling Bob returns 942000 mostly irrelevant results.
NH has has offered us a lot of info about himself, he has published his paper, videos, etc, and has a website. He doesn't try to claim any other qualification other than his fertile mind, but he does reveal his associates and their qualifications. He doesn't publicly criticise you.
You on the other hand have a mere blog and no easily visible ID except that you call yourself Bob.
I gave you a link to your blog in my post on June 24. That's pretty good for someone who's not identified him/herself.
The links you gave to people like Zoe lead to further blog entries by other unidentified persons (could even be you under a pseudonom) spouting some math but not actually authoritative.
As for me, if you want to know, I can identify with NH as I also felt a bit like an alien on my own planet as a kid, an average student, excellent gymnast and surfer. I studied Agric. Econ at Uni New England but veered off in the direction of Ecology and Environ. Science. Various other things.
Eventually, my passion for philosophy which I persued most of my life, overwhelmed my mind and I went in that direction. I am a disciple of Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja Goswami, a celebrated master of Vedic knowledge, revered as a modern saint. I also spent years at the feet of Srila Gour Govinda Swami, also recognised as a master and a saint.
Whilst I enjoy science and guitar playing, jazz, a few other pastimes, spiritual life is what is my priority. Want to know more, see my website.
Who are you Bob?What qualification do you have? Where's YOUR website? Let me know via my site if you MUST keep it private although it difficult to imagine why you would.
your well wisher
t3rry
BTW. I lived for years on a farm at Armidale Aust + others. I have spent hours and hours viewing the Pleiades and more through field glasses on pitch black clear cold winter's nights. I'd be surprised if NH hadn't done similar.
Science and mathematics doesn't come from any authority. It comes from the yearning for honest enquiry and our capacity for clear thought.
Of course Haramein has offered lots of info on himself - he's running a personality cult.
I'd rather hoped you wouldn't stoop to implying that my wish to remain anonymous was somehow suspicious and invalidated my perspective.
I've made a whole bunch of very clear and specific claims against Haramein's 'science' (they are not personal attacks) and I've left the floor wide open for anyone to point out the flaws in my reasoning if I'm wrong.
All I have so far is hundreds of people trying everything they can think of to undermine my right to say anything against him. It's been well over a year now. If anything I've said was incorrect, I think someone would have spotted it by now.
Of course I'm talking about science, not faith. If you want to believe someone's stories, on a personal basis, I have no wish to dispute that. If you're not interested in science, and my claims are entirely about science, then we have no need to argue.
Bob Bob Bob ...
Don't be offended. I have stated from the onset that I don't know if you are correct or if Nassim is correct. From my current point of view it would appear that Nassim is correct.
My background in math is limited to the ability I gleaned from economics studies, and when I became a sole parent it became pertinent to earn my living at home, thus I have spent the latter part of my working life eeking out a modest living at my computer keyboard as a web designer/developer. It's a long time since I've done any serious
math, yet you can believe me ... once I get my mind spinning, I really enjoy math, I used to help my partner with her biomath just for the fun of it, and I know next to nothing about biomath, but I am not inclined to go back to school and relearn truckloads of forgotten math just to see if you are right. It's just not a priority to me, and in 6 months I will probably have almost forgotten Nassim, or would have if I hadn't engaged in this fun banter with you. No offence intended.
You appear to be preaching to the wrong people. If, as you insist, Nassim IS a threat to the future of the world as we know it, and that could change at any time without Nassim's assistance, then speaking on a mere blog to the faceless world of internet surfers will get you absolutely nowhere. Perhaps locating a sympathetic Professor in the Oxford Physics Dep't could get things going for you.
If nobody else cares to the extent that you do, take the hint, it's probably not so important. I don't think that it's important.
Initially, I Googled Nassim Haramein after watching a film about him, to see who he is. The first website in the Google results was your blog, Bob, that's how I found you. You've possibly done more to promote NH than to discredit him. Now we are writing about him here in these comments. More and more exposure for Nassim Haramein.
God save Nassim Haramein. Hoorah!!!
You don't appear to understand how to go about what you are attempting to do. By your anonyminity you are expecting others to form their own, perhaps misguided, opinions as to who you are. You don't strike me as an academic. I've known a handful of such persons in this lifetime. They are usually awesomely intelligent. I love them. I once got invited to spend time with a professor on his yacht out on the Australian Barrier Reef. Amazing guy.
So, who is Bob. I don't know. Maybe a undergrad, maybe a graduate with a few science tools to his credit. Maybe someone who just likes science. No crime there, I like science too, not in the same way you do, but I have always had a fascination for science.
I have been intrigued by science since I was a little child and my father who also enjoyed science, encouraged me and was dissapointed when I didn't study for a BSc as an undergrad. Nevertheless, I don't feel threatened by the fact that Nassim may be a fraud. I can't imagine too many peoples' lives changing more than by the barest margin if Nassim Haramein is a cheat. If he is correct, it could make a LOT of difference to a LOT of people.
The question is, in my mind, and maybe in the minds of various persons who've read your accusations regarding Nassim Haramein, is, "Does this Bob actually know what he is on about"? Unfortunately, for you Bob, the more I have to do with you, the more I begin to doubt that it's not actually Nassim who is a fruitloop. And other people besides myself, who lack the inclination to do the math just to see what you are on about, would be forced to consider the same thing.
Don't forget, Nassim is saying that ALL of science's geometry is based upon an incorrect premise and physics has been incorrectly applying the renormalisation factor to the estimated mass of a proton; to the average Joe in the street, this indicates that your math may also have no credibility.
MORE BELOW ...
I have read the first 6 pages of Nassim and Elizabeth's paper and although the math is a bit beyond me, IT DOES APPEAR TO MAKE SENSE. I might be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but it looks sound enough, and don't forget, this is the paper that they submitted.
If Nassim and Elizabeth are saying anything incorrect don't you think that an academic looking to further his own career would publicly jump on him. It appears that no one of any scientific stature is willing to take Nassim on because they can't conclusively discredit him and don't want to make fools of themselves in public.
BUT, Nassim and 'Liz ARE suggesting that the whole physics community have misunderstood their own field. Ouch! Nassim, good soul, that's a great way to make enemies. Any wonder nobody wants to accept you.
In any case, Bob, time will tell. Whichever view is correct will endure in the long run.
Personally, you've piqued my interest, I think I'll take the Black Whole disk over to a friend's house and watch it again.
Joy
t3rry
"If, as you insist, Nassim IS a threat to the future of the world as we know it" - Terry, you really are a marvel of your own fantasy land. I don't know what you think I'm "attempting to do", but it sure ain't anything like what I'm attempting to do.
You're right, it's not that important. I just like a debate sometimes. But as you say, I'm talking to the wrong guy - you're far more interested in making wildly wrong and derogatory assumptions about my intentions rather than engaging with the subject.
One thing: "If Nassim and Elizabeth are saying anything incorrect don't you think that an academic looking to further his own career would publicly jump on him. It appears that no one of any scientific stature is willing to take Nassim on because they can't conclusively discredit him and don't want to make fools of themselves in public." - Use your head, man! Haramein has never had anything published in a scientific journal, he has zero reputation among scientists, there is no controversy regarding anything he says, nobody takes any notice of him. Is that honestly your best assessment of the situation?
Anyway, I'd better leave you to your opinions, since the more I discuss this with you, the further you've retreated into ignoring the content of anything I've said and fixating on your own invented world. Sometimes I have to admit that I've probably done more harm than good in trying to explain myself.
It was fun, at least to begin with.
All the best
Bob
Post a Comment