God and Physics

Can “science” explain god? Short answer, depends on the area of science, what explain means and what god means.

Can physics explain the god of the Bible? No.

The god of the Bible works directly with people and contrary to the laws of nature.

If there were a god who created the natural laws and worked within those laws to shape the universe, then there could be no god to person direct communication. Certainly, there could be no miracles, since those are by definition not explainable through any natural means.

Much like the argument, if we agree that something can’t come from nothing, then where did the god come from? If we agree that there are natural laws, why do they need to be backed by a god?

It’s is far more correct to say, there’s natural laws and we don’t have any evidence to even guess  what was before the origin of the universe. Maybe when we figure out the what happened, we can develop hypothesis.

Still, I have to wonder: the bible is full of stories of god talking directly to people and making clear demands.

So, why are those ancient stories deemed true, when today, most people claiming to talk directly with god are given at least medications and sometimes committed to hospital care. While the folks who set themselves up as religious leaders who claim to talk to god, have to wait to be caught in a money and/or sex scandal before they are locked up.

Claiming to be able to talk to an anthropomorphic and/or personal God, regardless of the presence or absence of a hairbrush, is delusional.

Interestingly, when people who beleive that they are Jesus Christ encounter each other, it doesn’t diminish their self identity, as this reveals: Tale of the Three Christs

15 thoughts on “God and Physics

  1. ‘Claiming to be able to talk to an anthropomorphic and/or personal God, regardless of the presence or absence of a hairbrush, is delusional.’

    You’re such an intelligent person, it always surprises me that you keep affirming such things on topics you don’t actually know about. What is the use of having been shaken so hard and having fallen to pieces, if now you are only trying to reconstruct yourself with hard beliefs as limiting and imprisoning as these?… When one day it happens to you too to talk to ‘God’, you will see for yourself what a simple and totally natural thing it can be. Of course there are also some delusional people as in everything else, but it is their strange behaviour and the usually very ego-inflating contents of the messages they receive that show it is not the real thing. The real thing does exist very well though, and is in fact the most precious capacity each of us has: a very normal thing actually, as ‘God ‘ is all-encompassing, but also at the same time the eternally conscious central core and essential being of each of us, and of everything else there is.
    It can be extremely beneficial not only to the person who is speaking with ‘God’ but also to the many other people who read the texts of such inner conversations and in that way come in contact with what may touch them and awaken them to their true reality too. Eileen Caddy for example, who founded and guided until her death the extraordinary Findhorn experiment in Scotland, is still helping thousands of human beings everywhere as well, through the little books of collected messages received every morning from ‘God’ that have been published and that demand keeps re-edited again and again.

    • Because I am rebuilding on what is real and evidence based as a foundation.

      I am unsure what is real – too often everything feels like a vivid dream and there’s the matter of timeline perception shifts, so I have to begin with what is real and struggle with the no sense of magnitude order of difference.

      I’ve never heard of this group you refer to and a quick google search provided their website and what are very dubious claims as well as red flags and it didn’t take long to find the dissenting websites, which raise entirely reasonable concerns:
      http://www.kevinrdshepherd.info/findhorn_foundation_problems.html

      • What Findhorn in itself is becoming now is another matter. Its present reality, whatever it is (I’ll look at the link you give) can take nothing away from the value of the messages received every morning inwardly and noted down by Eileen Caddy during all its very valuable early years.
        And this was the topic you and I were talking about: the reality and importance of those inner dialogues one can have with the central part of oneself, the only part that still has its original full and divine consciousness, and so is capable of giving us all the advice we need in our life.
        It seems to me that the most you could say about that topic is that you never had that experience yourself yet, so FOR YOU it is not real. If you said that only, it would be totally acceptable to me.
        But when you affirm that such inner dialogues can only be delusional, it is affirming more than you really know, I’m simply pointing that out to you.

        • I don’t need to experience something to make it real for me, but to accept someone else’s experience, it would have to be credible.

          That extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof has withstood my cognitive collapse and reconstruction.

          Subjective experiences are very hard to share, and particularly to understand the universe through them – but, they are very real experiences, and how we interpret them is often culturally primed – which is why i am paying such attention to what I am experiencing, because it’s not anything I expected nor am I able to find an adequate description from other people

          I think that’s what giving it a sense of hyper-reality for me – I am not reading into, because I have no expectations to shape the experiences.

          • All right, I guess this is as far as you can go for now, so I won’t push you any further, but thank you for this discussion, and go back to my own blog! 🙂

  2. Hey Bhaga

    Don’t worry, I take what you post as questions, not criticisms – which aren’t automatically negative in any event, but rather, pointing out pitfalls to suggest a better direction.

  3. Shall I tell you my immediate short reply?…
    Perhaps you should consider also the possibility that our great human mind hasn’t in fact discovered yet all of the Laws of Nature, and that miracles are simply when the laws we don’t know yet about have been in operation?
    This always seems to me incredible, how we so easily believe we have discovered everything and know everything!!!
    And among other things that have been discovered by Physics, but that people always forget about, is a very important one: that two things that seem to us to be opposite and contradicting each other, still may not be excluding each other at all, but may coexist very well in actual Reality, not the fake one our dualistic mind is only capable of perceiving…
    So there might very well be at the same time a ‘God’ one could call impersonal, because It is everywhere, and also the very same ‘God’ in the personal form of It… just like photons, electrons, and everything else are waves but also particles – which for a long time was thought by scientists to be an impossibility, but then was found to be the actual way things are.

    • Oh, I don’t expect that we know even half of everything – certainly the 300+ exo-planets we’ve detected have made us rethink what we’ve learned about solar system formation and the Goldilocks zone.

      But we’re going to need another word than “god” with all it’s baggage and misunderstanding and really, lack of a clear definition.

      • I am reminded of someone saying something like “Some things are unexplainable, so I shall explain it – by calling it ‘god'”.

        – well done.
        I’m glad that’s cleared up then.

      • Why do you both still waste your time discussing this ‘God’ of the Bible???
        Of course it’s up to you, but perhaps you have done that enough, you could now concentrate rather on less absurd and less revolting, more truly loving descriptions of ‘God’, and examine them seriously?…

          • I wrote again into the wrong ‘Reply ‘space, for I didn’t hit the needed button…
            So my answer to this has landed up there, in a totally wrong and meaningless place!… Anyway, it was this:
            That’s a good enough reason for sure, you are right… Sorry for my own hasty, stupid criticism.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s