God as fundamental reality

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

God as fundamental reality

Post #1

Post by Swami »

In scientific worldview, the most basic level of the Universe determines the nature of things. This is why scientists practice reductive materialism as a way to explain everything in terms of its most basic parts and their interaction. Everything in the Universe then is just the play of physics.

Everything is Physics
Physicists like to say that, if you look deeply into any branch of science, you’ll find physics at its core. Not every chemist, biologist or psychologist may agree with that notion, but the physicists do have a point: they study matter at its most basic, and the physical sciences ultimately are trying to explain how matter works, whether in black holes or brain cells.https://www.kavlifoundation.org/science ... rN4O25Fx7g

In Hinduism, there is also the concept of fundamental reality but it is called God. God is not a White male in the sky, but rather God is whatever is at the level of fundamental reality. What exists at fundamental reality? To the Hindu, it is nothing but Brahman. Brahman contains the attributes of bliss, existence, and awareness (consciousness). This is why I say everything is just a manifestation of consciousness.

Consciousness is fundamental. Everything should be explained in terms of it. This is why it is foolish for scientists to advocate for materialism as if explaining something out there will lead you to understand life. This is backwards and foolish philosophy.

How can I be so sure? Experience. But for the skeptic, let us show this using reduction.

Where do humans come from? Biology.
Where does biology come from? Chemistry - molecules
Where does chemistry come from? Physics - atoms, particles..
Where do atoms and particles come from? Our experience of it.
Where does experience come from? Our awareness.

And finally, where does awareness come from? You can not get beyond awareness and existence.


For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?

Quantum physicist provides the answer:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18080
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Swami wrote: In Hinduism, there is also the concept of fundamental reality but it is called God. God is not a White male in the sky, but rather God is whatever is at the level of fundamental reality. What exists at fundamental reality? To the Hindu, it is nothing but Brahman. Brahman contains the attributes of bliss, existence, and awareness (consciousness). This is why I say everything is just a manifestation of consciousness.
So in other words, you believe in Hinduism. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true, right?
Swami wrote: Consciousness is fundamental. Everything should be explained in terms of it. This is why it is foolish for scientists to advocate for materialism as if explaining something out there will lead you to understand life. This is backwards and foolish philosophy.
Calling large groups of people foolish only suggest arrogance on your part.
Swami wrote: How can I be so sure? Experience. But for the skeptic, let us show this using reduction.
You are about to make a grave error in reasoning here:
Swami wrote: Where do humans come from? Biology.
Where does biology come from? Chemistry - molecules
Where does chemistry come from? Physics - atoms, particles..
Where do atoms and particles come from? Our experience of it. <--Grave Error right here!
Where does experience come from? Our awareness.
And how do we obtain awareness without a living physical brain? Your idea of reductionism is grossly flawed. If your brain dies you are no longer aware of anything. In fact, it doesn't even need to die. Even brains that are still alive can be totally unconscious and potentially have no awareness at all.
Swami wrote: And finally, where does awareness come from? You can not get beyond awareness and existence.
The fact is that you do not know the answer to the very questions you ask. Scientists are still looking at how awareness comes into being. Those who study the neural sciences have very good reason that awareness is a product of a brain.
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
If that's the case then consciousness cannot be fundamental because it would require that it first exists before it could exist. So you've just demonstrated why consciousness cannot be the ground of all being.
Swami wrote: Quantum physicist provides the answer:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)
We don't need to postulate consciousness. That's actually wrong. We can only think about ideas because we are conscious, but we can certainly imagine and propose a universe existing without containing any consciousness at all.

It's far more reasonable to conclude that consciousness arose from complexity than to propose that the universe was always conscious. Why should we think the universe was conscious in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? It wouldn't even make sense to postulate that the universe was conscious at that time.

Consciousness and an ability to be aware is something we have only seen on Planet earth. And even that awareness was very slow to evolve over billions of years.

So what are your questions again:
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
Yes we can indeed go beyond consciousness. We can imagine a universe without consciousness and explain how it would still behave according to the purely mechanical behavior of material matter and forced.

In short, physicists have already gone beyond consciousness in their theories and explanations. So you are quite a bit behind the times on that one.

And of course we need to have consciousness to know these things. But we have absolutely no reason to think that our consciousness is required for the things we do know.

In fact, we actually expect that at some time in the future our very own sun will expand and devour the earth vaporizing us completely. We will no longer be conscious after that event. But do we have any reason to think that this would then mean that the sun would suddenly disappear and no longer exist just because we are no longer conscious of it?

No. To the contrary we have ever rational reason to believe that the sun will continue to exist after we are all dead.

So your proposals aren't even making any sense. Consciousness wasn't needed in the universe before humans evolved, and it won't need consciousness after humans are gone.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that require consciousness to exist at all. But it's very reasonable to conclude that a physical universe must exist before consciousness beings could evolve and come into being.

So if your OP is intended as a debate against materialism I don't think it's going to get very far.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #3

Post by Diagoras »

Swami wrote:Consciousness is fundamental. Everything should be explained in terms of it. This is why it is foolish for scientists to advocate for materialism as if explaining something out there will lead you to understand life.
<bolding mine>

You seem to be disagreeing with scientific specialisation. If not, please would you explain the perihelion precession of Mercury in terms of consciousness?

Perhaps you will first allow that specialisation has has remarkable success in explaining many things through materialism? So it does have its uses, and therefore advocating for materialism isn't necessarily foolish.

None of the above (either your dismissal of materialism, nor my response) addresses your debate question though: can we go beyond consciousness? By 'beyond', are you meaning something like a 'heightened state', or 'mind/body separation? Or something else entirely?

We've had a few discussions on the subject here in the past with not a great deal of progress. Mainly (I think) because others, including myself, haven't had the same experiences as you, and therefore have nothing to 'test' except your word. If something's changed since you were last active on the forums and there's fresh evidence that might sway opinion, it'd help your case if you'd post it.

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #4

Post by Swami »

Divine Insight wrote:So in other words, you believe in Hinduism. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true, right?
It is not truth by itself. I do not accept anything as truth unless I can experience it for myself.
Divine Insight wrote:Calling large groups of people foolish only suggest arrogance on your part.
I have spoken with many scientists at many universities. I can say they are arrogant. Some think of themselves has been real smart. The truth is they know too much about the wrong things. A truly smart person knows a lot about the right things.

Extra:
The most important to know is about the nature of self. They are studying based on a fundamental error by studying things in terms of matter.

Divine Insight wrote: You are about to make a grave error in reasoning here:
Swami wrote: Where do humans come from? Biology.
Where does biology come from? Chemistry - molecules
Where does chemistry come from? Physics - atoms, particles..
Where do atoms and particles come from? Our experience of it. <--Grave Error right here!
Where does experience come from? Our awareness.
And how do we obtain awareness without a living physical brain? Your idea of reductionism is grossly flawed. If your brain dies you are no longer aware of anything. In fact, it doesn't even need to die. Even brains that are still alive can be totally unconscious and potentially have no awareness at all.
The biggest error in Western thinking is not understanding the nature of consciousness. Eastern thought is a product of thousands of years of studying m experimenting with consciousness. Being a follower and thinker in such philosophy, I can say that I understand the nature of consciousness which has also led me to understand the nature of reality.

In Western thought, consciousness is seen as a product of the brain. The truth is consciousness exist as part of everything, and the brain is just one way that it is experienced. This shows that the brain is only a medium, and that consciousness can be experienced through other mediums. It can be experienced through all matter, whether it be as part of one thing (a brain, or a tree) or as part of everything, like the self-transcedent experience.

So let's ask again,











Swami wrote: And finally, where does awareness come from? You can not get beyond awareness and existence.
The fact is that you do not know the answer to the very questions you ask. Scientists are still looking at how awareness comes into being. Those who study the neural sciences have very good reason that awareness is a product of a brain.
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
If that's the case then consciousness cannot be fundamental because it would require that it first exists before it could exist. So you've just demonstrated why consciousness cannot be the ground of all being.
Swami wrote: Quantum physicist provides the answer:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)
We don't need to postulate consciousness. That's actually wrong. We can only think about ideas because we are conscious, but we can certainly imagine and propose a universe existing without containing any consciousness at all.

It's far more reasonable to conclude that consciousness arose from complexity than to propose that the universe was always conscious. Why should we think the universe was conscious in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? It wouldn't even make sense to postulate that the universe was conscious at that time.

Consciousness and an ability to be aware is something we have only seen on Planet earth. And even that awareness was very slow to evolve over billions of years.

So what are your questions again:
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
Yes we can indeed go beyond consciousness. We can imagine a universe without consciousness and explain how it would still behave according to the purely mechanical behavior of material matter and forced.

In short, physicists have already gone beyond consciousness in their theories and explanations. So you are quite a bit behind the times on that one.

And of course we need to have consciousness to know these things. But we have absolutely no reason to think that our consciousness is required for the things we do know.

In fact, we actually expect that at some time in the future our very own sun will expand and devour the earth vaporizing us completely. We will no longer be conscious after that event. But do we have any reason to think that this would then mean that the sun would suddenly disappear and no longer exist just because we are no longer conscious of it?

No. To the contrary we have ever rational reason to believe that the sun will continue to exist after we are all dead.

So your proposals aren't even making any sense. Consciousness wasn't needed in the universe before humans evolved, and it won't need consciousness after humans are gone.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that require consciousness to exist at all. But it's very reasonable to conclude that a physical universe must exist before consciousness beings could evolve and come into being.

So if your OP is intended as a debate against materialism I don't think it's going to get very far.[/quote]

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #5

Post by Swami »

Divine Insight wrote:So in other words, you believe in Hinduism. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true, right?
It is not truth by itself. I do not accept anything as truth unless I can experience it for myself. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Divine Insight wrote:Calling large groups of people foolish only suggest arrogance on your part.
I have spoken with many scientists at many universities. I can many are arrogant. They are too smart in their own eyes. The truth is they know too much about the wrong things. A truly smart person knows a lot about the right things.

Extra:
The most important to know is about the nature of self. They are studying based on a fundamental error by studying things in terms of matter.
Divine Insight wrote: You are about to make a grave error in reasoning here:
Swami wrote: Where do atoms and particles come from? Our experience of it. <--Grave Error right here!
Where does experience come from? Our awareness.
And how do we obtain awareness without a living physical brain? Your idea of reductionism is grossly flawed. If your brain dies you are no longer aware of anything. In fact, it doesn't even need to die. Even brains that are still alive can be totally unconscious and potentially have no awareness at all.
The brain does not create consciousness. What neuroscientists are studying is how consciousness experiences through the brain. This does not mean that consciousness can not experience through or as part of anything else and that is the big picture that scientists are missing. They will only find interaction without causation and that is because consciousness is uncaused.







What you experience as consciousness is simply how consciousness works through a brain. But as part of any other matter, like a star or tree, you would experience differently. In fact, when you transcend your sense of self, you can experience yourself as part of everything.





There is no causation but only interaction. The brain is one medium that consciousness can experience through.


This type of consciousness you are referring to is simply how consciousness is expressed through a brain.


We are the consciousness that experiences through a brain.

The biggest error in Western thinking is not understanding the nature of consciousness. Eastern thought is a product of thousands of years of studying m experimenting with consciousness. Being a follower and thinker in such philosophy, I can say that I understand the nature of consciousness which has also led me to understand the nature of reality.

In Western thought, consciousness is seen as a product of the brain. The truth is consciousness exist as part of everything, and the brain is just one way that it is experienced. This shows that the brain is only a medium, and that consciousness can be experienced through other mediums. It can be experienced through all matter, whether it be as part of one thing (a brain, or a tree) or as part of everything, like the self-transcedent experience.

So let's ask again,











Swami wrote: And finally, where does awareness come from? You can not get beyond awareness and existence.
The fact is that you do not know the answer to the very questions you ask. Scientists are still looking at how awareness comes into being. Those who study the neural sciences have very good reason that awareness is a product of a brain.
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
If that's the case then consciousness cannot be fundamental because it would require that it first exists before it could exist. So you've just demonstrated why consciousness cannot be the ground of all being.
Swami wrote: Quantum physicist provides the answer:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)
We don't need to postulate consciousness. That's actually wrong. We can only think about ideas because we are conscious, but we can certainly imagine and propose a universe existing without containing any consciousness at all.

It's far more reasonable to conclude that consciousness arose from complexity than to propose that the universe was always conscious. Why should we think the universe was conscious in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? It wouldn't even make sense to postulate that the universe was conscious at that time.

Consciousness and an ability to be aware is something we have only seen on Planet earth. And even that awareness was very slow to evolve over billions of years.

So what are your questions again:
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?
Yes we can indeed go beyond consciousness. We can imagine a universe without consciousness and explain how it would still behave according to the purely mechanical behavior of material matter and forced.

In short, physicists have already gone beyond consciousness in their theories and explanations. So you are quite a bit behind the times on that one.

And of course we need to have consciousness to know these things. But we have absolutely no reason to think that our consciousness is required for the things we do know.

In fact, we actually expect that at some time in the future our very own sun will expand and devour the earth vaporizing us completely. We will no longer be conscious after that event. But do we have any reason to think that this would then mean that the sun would suddenly disappear and no longer exist just because we are no longer conscious of it?

No. To the contrary we have ever rational reason to believe that the sun will continue to exist after we are all dead.

So your proposals aren't even making any sense. Consciousness wasn't needed in the universe before humans evolved, and it won't need consciousness after humans are gone.

There's nothing in the laws of physics that require consciousness to exist at all. But it's very reasonable to conclude that a physical universe must exist before consciousness beings could evolve and come into being.

So if your OP is intended as a debate against materialism I don't think it's going to get very far.[/quote][/quote]

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Post #6

Post by Swami »

Divine Insight wrote:So in other words, you believe in Hinduism. Good for you. But that doesn't make it true, right?
It is not truth by itself. I do not accept anything as truth unless I can experience it for myself. I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Divine Insight wrote:Calling large groups of people foolish only suggest arrogance on your part.
I have spoken with many scientists at many universities. Many are arrogant. They are too smart in their own eyes. The truth is they know too much about the wrong things. A truly smart person knows a lot about the right things.
Divine Insight wrote: You are about to make a grave error in reasoning here:
Swami wrote: Where do atoms and particles come from? Our experience of it. <--Grave Error right here!
Where does experience come from? Our awareness.
And how do we obtain awareness without a living physical brain? Your idea of reductionism is grossly flawed. If your brain dies you are no longer aware of anything. In fact, it doesn't even need to die. Even brains that are still alive can be totally unconscious and potentially have no awareness at all.
Consciousness does not need a brain. All it needs is existence. Let's do another reduction but this time of consciousness. Meditation and your sciences show that I can experience or be aware without the senses and bodily input. I can be aware without mental input. I can be aware without or beyond my body. Then I can be aware even without my sense of self. However, I can not be aware without existence because experience involves existence. I can not be aware without awareness because I'm using it to be aware. Therefore, what you can't get beyond is fundamental which shows existence and consciousness itself.

If you follow the thinking of scientists on reduction then I can conclude that I am fundamentally consciousness. Since I don't even need "self", then I can exist as part of or through everything. When you can master this then life can no longer force you to come back as a human or a tree. You are free from reincarnation.

Now, all of the atoms, the molecules, the cells do not exist "out there". The only reason you think so is because your senses that make it seem that way. When you can perceive without the senses, then you will know that these things exist through you. If these things only exist through our consciousness then they are nothing more than a dream. They don't exist outside of my awareness just as dreams don't exist outside of the mind.
Divine Insight wrote:
Swami wrote: And finally, where does awareness come from? You can not get beyond awareness and existence.
The fact is that you do not know the answer to the very questions you ask. Scientists are still looking at how awareness comes into being. Those who study the neural sciences have very good reason that awareness is a product of a brain.
What neuroscientists are studying is how consciousness interacts with the brain. These interactions do not mean that brain causes consciousness. The big picture Western scientists are missing is that consciousness can interact through or as part of anything else, like a tree, a rock. The brain is only one medium for consciousness to express itself through. For this reason, your scientists will only find interactions but never causation if looking only at a brain.
Divine Insight wrote:
Swami wrote: For discussion:
Can we go beyond consciousness?
How can you know this, when you need consciousness to know?

If that's the case then consciousness cannot be fundamental because it would require that it first exists before it could exist. So you've just demonstrated why consciousness cannot be the ground of all being.
I disagree with you. Many Western scientists used to think like you but now reject materialism after much contemplation and experience.
Divine Insight wrote:
Swami wrote: Quantum physicist provides the answer:
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.
- Max Planck (father of quantum theory)
We don't need to postulate consciousness. That's actually wrong. We can only think about ideas because we are conscious, but we can certainly imagine and propose a universe existing without containing any consciousness at all.
You are using consciousness to imagine. O:)
Divine Insight wrote: It's far more reasonable to conclude that consciousness arose from complexity than to propose that the universe was always conscious. Why should we think the universe was conscious in the first few nanoseconds of the Big Bang? It wouldn't even make sense to postulate that the universe was conscious at that time.
When you can perceive without the filter of the mind and senses then you see reality as it is. This is why materialism is unreliable. It is a thought that is derived from sensory observations. When Western scientists discover the true cause of consciousness or when they can perceive without the senses, then they will be on the right path.
Divine Insight wrote: Consciousness and an ability to be aware is something we have only seen on Planet earth. And even that awareness was very slow to evolve over billions of years.
Not so. Being aware through our senses evolved but we can be aware without the senses. Perceiving with the senses is not perceiving reality as it is. You see, when you experience reality through your senses, it is an indirect experience because it is filtered through the senses . When you can perceive without any filter, such as the pure conscious state, then you will realize there is nothing "out there". You are only perceiving what is in you which does not require senses anymore than the perception of dreams.

Yoga Vasistha,Book I, ch. 3
2 Valmiki replied:— Know, holy saint, that the things seen in this world are deceiving, even as the blueness of the sky is an optical illusion. Therefore it is better to efface them in oblivion rather than to keep their memory. 3 All visible objects have no actual existence. We have no idea of them except through sensation. Inquire into these apprehensions and you will never find them as real.

User avatar
Swami
Scholar
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 10 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #7

Post by Swami »

Diagoras wrote:
Swami wrote:Consciousness is fundamental. Everything should be explained in terms of it. This is why it is foolish for scientists to advocate for materialism as if explaining something out there will lead you to understand life.
<bolding mine>

You seem to be disagreeing with scientific specialisation. If not, please would you explain the perihelion precession of Mercury in terms of consciousness?
I am sure there is knowledge to this but how does this answer the big questions that man is after? What is the nature and origin of the Universe? What is the reality of things? What is its fundamental nature? These are the big questions that scientists should be after.

If this is all just a simulation then does knowing about Mercury matter when it is arbitrary coding of some simulator? If this is a dream, then does learning about a dog in my dream get me to the reality of the dog? This is what I mean when I say scientists know too much about the wrong things. If they are interested in learning the right things then their focus should be on knowing about consciousness or the fundamental Self.

From my perspective, materialism is a distraction. The planet Mercury does not exist "out there". Mercury is one of many manifestations of consciousness.
Diagoras wrote: Perhaps you will first allow that specialisation has has remarkable success in explaining many things through materialism? So it does have its uses, and therefore advocating for materialism isn't necessarily foolish.
Success is a very positive word. Success and true happiness comes with knowing your true nature and living life with this in mind. Since we are in Christianity section then we can use the life of Jesus as an example.

Jesus knew the true nature of reality. He knew that he could not simply go by what is "seen", because there was a reality that can not be perceived by the senses. In knowing this, he mastered reality. Whatever he desired was given to him. He could've became a billionaire since no storm nor mountain could hold him back, he fed thousands with just a few loaves. You would call these "miraculous" events. Success is not about working for this world. You are learning about it. You create technology for it. If you believed what Jesus believed, then the Universe would be working for you.
Diagoras wrote: None of the above (either your dismissal of materialism, nor my response) addresses your debate question though: can we go beyond consciousness? By 'beyond', are you meaning something like a 'heightened state', or 'mind/body separation? Or something else entirely?
I am meaning outside of consciousness.

User avatar
Charles
Apprentice
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:54 pm

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #8

Post by Charles »

Swami wrote:From my perspective, materialism is a distraction. The planet Mercury does not exist "out there". Mercury is one of many manifestations of consciousness.
Applying this definition of all is consciousness to morality and I suspect you agree with the Hindu stance that evil has no material reality itself but is only a manifestation of consciousness - I'm not sure of the phrasing of this point. GOOD and evil are constructs with no absolute reality themselves.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: God as fundamental reality

Post #9

Post by marco »

Swami wrote:

Consciousness is fundamental. Everything should be explained in terms of it. This is why it is foolish for scientists to advocate for materialism as if explaining something out there will lead you to understand life. This is backwards and foolish philosophy.

How can I be so sure? Experience.
I think a large part of being sure comes from Planck's pronouncement on consciousness. Nonetheless, experience is not the best way of attaining certainty. It has limited validity as we found with Newton's laws which, from experience, work perfectly but beyond our experience the speed of light has to be considered, else the rules fail.

Descartes tried to prove his existence was a reality by noting that he was able to think. The local conclusions we draw from who we are and how we think are of limited validity. They will do for making toast or driving to work but if we want to consider origins, we have to accept that we are three-year-old children attempting to derive a series solution to a complex differential equation. We don't have the tools to get an answer. Consciousness has nothing to do with it.


.

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 547
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #10

Post by Thomas123 »

Swami: "I am sure there is knowledge to this but how does this answer the big questions that man is after? What is the nature and origin of the Universe? What is the reality of things? What is its fundamental nature? These are the big questions that scientists should be after."

..........
Why would any sensible human being want to know any of this?
Why would I want to know that reality does not exist?
You accuse science of running in the wrong direction only because they cannot reach the absurd. I have a much more logical gripe with the sciences.
If I'm dreaming, dont pinch me, please,Swami!

Post Reply