OK, Hugo, You are entitled to your POV, just like the rest of us. If it makes you happy, more power to you. If not, maybe go outside your fixed POV and explore a little; that's what real scientist do; get a hug from Amma or whatever.
Let me repeat myself from a previous post with a few additions [] : >From my observation, people define "God" in a limited way and say I don't believe in such a "God." Well good for them! [but basically they are arguing with their own definitions] How about we define "God" as the unbounded infinite awareness/consciousness/supreme-intelligence in which all phenomena appears, persists temporarily short or long, and disappears? Hmm. May take a little honest persistent investigation, real science free from the limitations of fear [and fixed definitions of science, fixed definitions of religion, fixed definitions of spirituality] Added comment: or we can let go of all definitions, and start observing with our own awareness, our own existence, and see where that leads us; observe and notice without preconceptions not only the forms and noise but also that which is formless and noiseless. Maharishi encouraged physicists in the 70's and 80's that it should be possible to fulfill Einstein's dream of formulating Unified Field theories. And they did come up with what are called string theories, if I remember correctly. And it's interesting that the attributes of the Unified Field string theories basically was/is the same as the attributes of the God of the mystics or even that of the core essence of religions if you know where to look ~ a field of seeming unmanifest nothingness with attributes of omnipresence-omniscience-omnipotence in which and from which all manifest creation arises. Or as many current teachers say, "by giving up all definitions, all preconceptions, self-realize the awareness which may seem initially as total emptiness/nothingness and then observe that it contains everything." In other words, don't juts rely on science and scientist external to yourself, become a real scientist yourself and experience truth rather that try to define it, which of course you can always do later for the fun of communicating. Observe, record, reason, take a break, allow thoughts to stop, allow intuition, have confidence in your own intuition, observe without thoughts, repeat, have fun, be happy, get a hug once a year; this is my science. peaceful spacious loving awareness, anatol --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodle...@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" anatol_zinc@ wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "anatol_zinc" anatol_zinc@ > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Einstein's theory of General Relativity predicted that light would > > bend bypassing a massive planet like the Sun. That was the only feasible > > experiment for his untested theory at the time since there were no > > lasers, etc. > > > > > > > > Einstein was asked what if the experiment proves his theory wrong? > > He said that would mean the experiment was not done properly. > > > > > > > > Amen ! > > > > > > HUGO: > > > Wrong about the faith part I'm afraid. That was a measure simply > > > of how confident he was about his theory of gravity and light. > > > .......... > > > >>> > > > > OK Hugo, so you see a big difference between the word faith and the word > > confidence. > > Not really, but you were implying Einstein was religious > about science when he wasn't at all. I guess the difference > between faith in god and confidence in his theory is that > his theory was always testable when the existence of a god > of any sort appears not to be. > > One can therefore have confidence in one's theories but > one can only have faith in god. > > > > Well I'm no psychic, > > I don't believe anyone is. And I am confident about that :-) > > > > So let me guess, you might say "I have confidence in myself and > > no-faith in God." Well what if, myself = God and confidence = faith? > > You can see how absurd the above assertion is. > > I would say I have occasional confidence in myself and no > faith that there is a god. Couldn't see the point really, > god is a bit of a failed hypothesis as far as I'm concerned, > I've read all the holy books and god seems like a part of > cultures that are so distant it's hard to say what god > actually was to them. Was he an astronaut or the halucinations > from a now defunct part of our brains? Was he an invention > by the ruling class to keep the lower orders in line or was > he a real live flesh and blood supreme creator being who > just happens to not want to have anything to do with us any > more? > > Or was he a name people came up with to explain how they > felt in altered states of consciousness bought on by too > much mushroom tea or meditation, or both? > > > > It's like the atheist said "I did not believe in God, until I > > found out I am God" > > I would say idiot rather than athiest, all they did was change > a definition of something to incorporate a change of opinion > about themselves. It isn't like thinking you are god changes > the meaning of any other discoveries in any way whatsoever, > it is merely a religious concept that makes spiritual people > feel better about themselves. No harm in it but it's a conclusion > based on faith. If you could *prove* you were god, that would be > a different matter but I suspect most people would just say > "that isn't what god means." >
