Author Topic: So, whaddya guys think?  (Read 6826 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 20, 2014, 12:37:33 PM
Reply #15


  • Settling In

  • Offline
  • *

  • 21
  • Karma:
    • View Profile
The issue with God and science is really an issue of being able to disprove the existence of God. There is no criteria on which one can pragmatically disprove God enough to prove it, so it becomes a question of philosophy for the moment either way(yes I am an atheist, but I try to make such decisions objectively, so I am open to some sort of acceptable form of proof). Limitations of science are not explicitly tied to the philosophy itself; rather, it is tied to the ability to observe things consistently which is why as new methods and technology come about, so to does science move forward.
There are so many definitions of the term "God". In ancient times there were a lot of magicians/psionics (whatever term you need for this) who had a pretty much significant power. The others worshiped those humans like gods and thought they were gods, cause they had these abilities while they (the believers) didn't. So what is god? Is god just something omnipotent? Is god omniscient? Is he omnipresent? Or is he likely everything? So many questions. If we find a proof of "god", then the question would be: IS THIS even god? Cause there are endless definitions of god. So what one is right, what one is wrong?

Of course, there was one person who actually made a pretty interesting "definition" of this god. He's called: "Franz Bardon". Actually, I'm not binding myself on hermetics, but the way he described this god sounded more agreeable than many other definitions, which are related to human personality or generally the human anatomy. (Like: God does "love" or god does "hate" which are very subjective terms and in my opinion doesn't fit this "god". In my opinion, If we can't define or prove this god, then it haves to be way more than just a being that haves feelings or something of many other definitions.)

Several times while describing the elements I have said that they proceed from the ethereal
principle. Accordingly, the ethereal principle is the ultimate, the supreme, the most powerful
thing, something inconceivable, the ultimate cause of all things existing and created. To put
it in a nutshell, it is the causal sphere. Therefore akasa is spaceless and timeless. It is the
non-created, the incomprehensible, the indefinable. The various religions have given it the
name of God. It is the fifth power, the original power. Everything has been created by it and is
kept in balance by it. It is the origin and the purity of all thoughts and intentions, it is the
causal world wherein the whole creation in subsisting on, beginning from the highest spheres
down to the lowest ones. It is the quintessence of the alchemists; it is all in all.

This sounds very agreeable if we leave out his own definitions, in short: God is something incomprehensible, indefinable. (Of course, this IS already a definition, so therefore it most likely ends in a paradox) I'm not really bound on this system, as I'm someone who performs alone and do my own stuff, but the way how he thought about that was pretty interesting. But all in all, it won't answer any of the questions "what/who" this god is and therefore he will remain indefinable and incomprehensible. As I said... Once we get a proof of the existence of this "god", then we may ask if this EVEN IS GOD.

« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 12:40:36 PM by Messiaen »