immortal

This is what they call the biggest scandal of Quantum Mechanics. THE REAL SCANDAL OF QUANTUM MECHANICS Am. J. Phys. in press 2009 Physicists still holding onto classical notions of realism even though all evidence are against scientific realism. Concept The mental Universe - Nature <link removed by moderator> All they needed was a theory of mind and they have it now. All evidence is pointing to a theistic view of our existence where the mind is a product of a divine God and a God hypothesis is a reasonable hypothesis explaining the origin of our cosmos and all these are compelling enough to investigate the pleroma of God. Science can learn from Religion and Religion can learn from Science. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. - Albert Einstein

In higher forms of teachings the church is the mystical body of Christ. Body of Christ Mystical Body of Christ In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Eph. 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Cor. 12:12). This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Through this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized; "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Cor. 10:17).G. H. JOYCE I don't think one can quantify the pleroma of God.

Oh!, they make false statements and they are incorrect? This is not your personal blog, this is a discussion forum, how do you say their claims are wrong? You can go on and be deluded as though there is no problem at all but I for sure doesn't want to be deluded. Its a simple fact that no element of physical reality exists corresponding to a physical quantity, the classical scientific realism is dead, do you just thought that philosophers are not going to question it and will just blindly accept what biased scientists say without examining the truth? We will question the foundations and assumptions of Science and the beliefs of scientists which they are so stubborn that they doesn't want to give up even though all evidence are against their beliefs. Its very clear that science is becoming more dogmatic and not being intellectual honest in accepting what the truth of the matter is. QUANTUM MECHANICS AND "OBJECTUATION" -Bernard d'Espagnat Realism and Objectivism in Quantum Mechanics -Vassilios Karakostas, 2012 Science needs to redefined and reshaped and scientists should adopt weak objectivism and should not use strong objectivist language while describing their scientific concepts and models. When I use the term "Religion", I am referring to all the religions of the world, I am talking of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Tibetian Vajraism etc. I am not talking of any particular religion or any particular god like Yahweh or Buddha or any other gods. The word 'Religion' represents all the religious traditions of the world and their basic doctrines and concepts. Perhaps a better term would be Esoteric Religions of the world. When I am using the word God, I am not leaving out Yahweh either, all names corresponding or representing God from different religions are included in it. All religions are talking of the same concept of God. Is that clear to you? As long as its not falsified, my claims are not false claims, its a valid hypothesis for the origin of our cosmos. If you have not heard it anywhere then hear it now. Cognitive Science - wiki Nope, if that was the case we had to abandon this endeavour of different ways of knowing the world, that's too myopic, do mathematicians invent their mathematics or do they discover them? Many think that they access it based on intuition and the whole argument of Sir Roger Penrose is based on that, therefore your argument that there are no other valid means of knowing the world is fundamentally flawed and there is nothing wrong in actually investigating whether there are other possible means of knowing which gives us practical useful knowledge. You want to prima facie reject it but I want to investigate it and no your conclusion is not a fact, that's dogmatism. Roger Penrose contends that the foundations of mathematics can't be understood absent the Platonic view that "mathematical truth is absolute, external and eternal, and not based on man-made criteria ... mathematical objects have a timeless existence of their own..." The ignorance is showing in the kind of arguments you are making. Yes, those three premises are very important for this discussion. The second and the third premise or the argument is from Religion and its eagerly waiting to explain those things if the first premise turns out to be true. Therefore its very important to figure out in the coming years with all the further research in quantum mechanics as well as experiments from consciousness studies as to whether the premise 1 is in fact true or not without any shadow of doubt. That's the only last hope for religion as far as I see it. I think both Science as well as Religion can battle it out in providing evidence in favour or against the validity of the premise 1.

Just like the empirical sciences, the goal of the Religious traditions is the pursuit of Truth, understanding the true nature of reality and the workings of the cosmos as Stephen Hawking says if we can understand the working of the cosmos then we can control it. Therefore the ones who understand the cosmos will be the masters of nature rather than its mere slaves subject to its forces. The main goal of Religion is to understand the way the cosmos works, hence the goal of both Science and Religion are one and the same i.e. to understand nature. Yes, one cannot reconcile Religion and Science based on the same epistemological grounds, they deal with different things. Religious traditions tries to understand the nature of reality existing independent of the human mind. However its wrong to think that both Religion and Science are diverging, no its not, its actually converging. Even though their methodology is different and deal with different things they both converge at a common point and make the same conclusion about the nature of reality which we are living in. If there is ever a Law of both Religion and Science then this should be it. "What we call empirical reality is only a state of mind"

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Ephesians 1:22-23) The church is the body of Christ and his body is not made of human flesh but made of the totality of divine powers(Aeons). When you visit a Church one shouldn't worship Christ as an idol separate from oneself but as someone who resides in you whose body forms the totality of divine powers through which all other Aeons emanate from and the goal of every Christian is restoration to fullness i.e being one with God. The Christ is the one who reveals the Self with in you so that you can become having the same essence of the Father and the Son. "The Son of God became man so that we might become God." - Athanasius. Athanasius & The Deity of Christ - 1, Dr. Nick Needham Athanasius & The Deity of Christ (2) This is the very soul of Christianity, that we are made of the same essence of the Father and we can become the Father. Divinization (Christian) One is open to the interpretation of the Pauline epistles and this Gnostic interpretation is as valid an interpretation as any other interpretation of the term fullness or pleroma. Are you claiming that these well educated scholars who argue that Paul was a Gnostic and that the verse of Collosians 2:9 should be interpreted in a Gnostic sense are brainwashed just like the Jihadhists? Are you crazy? The term Pleroma represents the totality of God's powers which we call the Aeons. Its very clear and precise. That's how the term should be understood.

Bernard D'Espagnat is well known for his works on Quantum Theory and Reality and his life time research in Quantum Physics has led him to his concept of what he calls a Veiled Reality and he thinks an independent reality exists which is not embedded in space-time which is the ultimate reality. Bernard himself advised that the great eastern philosophical system should be considered and I am showing that as Bernard says there is indeed a lot of knowledge in both the eastern esotericism as well as in the western esotericism which give us some amazing insights into the nature of our reality. There is indeed different systematic methodologies in eastern philosophical systems to arrive at valid accumulation of knowledge which are useful for practical purposes and anyone can access that knowledge as any time. Vidya means knowledge, its not book knowledge, Vidya means to have real knowledge of bringing a dead plant back to life or even a dead person for that matter, this is real knowledge, its not book knowledge. Its Esotericism and its as valid a field of study as any other study of the sciences or the philosophical doctrines. Very few research has been done on these Vidyas and very few people actually go after researching the methodologies of such forms of knowledge. Many scholars have already made important contributions into this field of study and its as practical as any other sciences is. Therefore this God hypothesis is as valid a hypothesis as any other scientific hypothesis for explaining the origin of our cosmos and its workings. Esotericists commonly argue that there is common esoteric essence in all the religions of the world and therefore all those religions which you have mentioned can be dumped as One and simply call it as "Religion" by capitalizing the word as I am not arguing for any particular religion instead I am arguing for what's there in all the religions of the world. You may find differences in those religions but for an esotericist there are no differences between those religions. In this way the capitalization of the word "Religion" is justified. It represents "something". As I said, its a thing, an entity and it should be capitalized to differentiate it from the common misunderstanding of associating the mind with the brain. God is a person, an anthropomorphic being and he deserves capitalization and Judaism is not the only religion which has achieved monotheistic thoughts in fact all religions recognize a supreme Father or a God. Mind is an anthropomorphic God, Intellect is an anthropomorphic God, Time is an anthropomorphic God, Space is an anthropomorphic God etc and they all emanated from one supreme Father or God and hence they all are made of God's stuff. That's exactly what I am trying to demonstrate that the several theist-involved religious systems are actually saying the same thing and there is no ambiguity in the different religions of the world and that's what esotericism is all about. Both the eastern as well as western esotericism have a core agreement with the ontological reality which they try to describe in their texts or in their myths. Where is my machine capable of strong AI? Don't argue that science is all there is when scientists really have no idea as to what the nature of reality actually is. All evidence is pointing to an existence of a metaphysical mind which is the product of a divine God and if you want to falsify it then come up with a machine capable of strong AI and if not this God hypothesis is a strong contender for explaining the origin of our cosmos and anyone can testify that metaphysical sense organs and a metaphysical mind with an Intellect exists by applying eastern methodologies in their research studies. I am actually tired of defending my views again and again. I have laid out my arguments very well in this thread, if you want to raise some issues please do it in this thread and I'll try my best to address them. My link Sugar doesn't have the property of sweetness and people who suffer from synaesthesia are evidence for that view and many cognitive scientists firmly believe that one need to study qualia far more seriously. You are confusing the epistemology of Religion with the epistemology of Science. Religion doesn't talk about molecular biology or any other kinds of stuff like quarks, protons, electrons etc so please for god sake don't ever confuse 'Prana' with the air which science tries to explain by modelling its behaviour. 'Prana' is different and its metaphysical and it too is an anthropomorphic God which has a form and it is formless. I am talking of wisdom traditions here and these traditions can be testified with specific methodologies based on eastern standards, no one needs to kill each other or get oneself hurt, it clearly shows your ignorance of the practices of these wisdom traditions and how unwise you are to suggest that.

I will take those verses one by one. Leviticus 19:29 - There are different forms of the word "Pleroma" and obviously those different forms gives us a specific guidance as to what meaning the word should take when it is translated. Romans 11:12 - Romans 11:25 - For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. I am going to quote a member's post from a Christian forum who clearly outlines how all these are connected. Its very obvious that fullness means pleroma - the totality of divine powers which forms the body of Christ not the body of Christ made of human flesh, that's how it should be understood. For the Gentiles, Christ is a mythical Christ not a super naturalist Christ made of human flesh. Galatians 4:4 - Do you have got any more verses to correct me? There is no ambiguity in what the term pleroma means, pleroma means the totality of divine powers (Aeons) which make up the body of Christ. Is that clear to you?

Religion deals with real things like "Mind", "Intellect", "Gods" etc and they all are made of God's stuff. Unfortunately the English language doesn't have precise words for that but in the east we have clear specific words for that. 1.Bahirmukh - observation through the (metaphysical) sense organs. 2. Antharmuk - observation without using the (metaphysical) sense organs. I am not talking of biological sense organs. Its very clear as to what Bernard D'Espagnat is saying there is no ambiguity in his claims. I doesn't want to talk about Molecular Neurobiology here because even neurons fall under empirical reality and they doesn't exist independent of the human mind and therefore neuron processing doesn't simulate conscious thought, in fact both awareness and the empirical reality is brought into existence by a different ontological entity i.e. a metaphysical mind which is the product of a divine God. I am not claiming anything on my own, this is what eastern philosophy and also the Greek philosophy is based on and that's how they view the world, for them there exists a metaphysical mind and an Intellect and intuition (which can be defined as "immediate insight or understanding without conscious reasoning") is possible because they take a top down approach very much like the Platonic realism and we can access the knowledge hidden in this realm by following a specific methodology. Its not based on the scientific method which is based on basic observation. It has been tested, scientists think that the human body is kept alive because it reduces entropy but that's not true understanding, the human body is made to be kept alive because of the vital force 'Prana' which is responsible for the retrospective creation of the empirical reality along with the help of a metaphysical mind and metaphysical sense organs. There are various ways to test the claim that the empirical reality is only a state of mind and there is no excuse for still believing that the empirical reality exists independent of the human mind. Scientists Baffled by Prahlad Jani, Man Who Doesn't Eat or Drink Experts baffled as Mataji’s medical reports are normal Western Science and Western philosophy is still too ignorant of what the true nature of the reality is and they never want to learn.

Christianity is one of the other major religions of the world which has reached the highest form of philosophical thought and its very important to preserve such ideas. If you substitute the word "pleroma" with "fullness" the meaning of the verse changes dramatically, in fact it leads to a different 'Father' altogether and almost a completely different religion. I think the English language should adopt words from different languages which conveys the meaning very clearly with a single precise word. The word pleroma should be substituted whenever fullness is used because that's how the term fullness should be understood. What is Pleroma? The Ogdoad origin myth is a valid creation myth expressed in majority of the religions of the world. I still don't understand why the Pauline epistles are considered as part of the orthodox Bible, its very clear that the Christ of the gentiles is in no way comparable to the Christ of the orthodox Christians. Indeed, the religion of the Greeks.

The epistemology of Science and Religion are inherently different. The world of Religion appears when the metaphysical mind disentangles itself with the metaphysical sense organs and in this state one can access the noumenon of the world. Immanuel Kant was wrong when he said that it is impossible to know the noumenon as all our knowledge is arrived through the sense organs but religion says, no, there is an another way of knowing i.e. by disentangling the mind which is entangled to the metaphysical sense organs. Bernard D'Espagnat and I firmly believe that Religion can indeed know the noumenon, the ultimate reality which is not embedded in space time and exists independently of us. The world of Science i.e. empirical world, the phenomenal world, the world of appearances appears when the mind is entangled with the metaphysical sense organs i.e. what we call empirical reality is only a state of mind.

What's there in other faiths that Christianity doesn't have? In the Greek translation Colossians 2:9 reads as this - hoti en auto katoikei pan to pleroma tes theotetos somatikos, It is customary that everywhere the term "fullness" is used it can or must be substituted with the term "pleroma". I didn't designed that image but it makes sense. The one who designed it has used the statements from both the Colossians and the Ephesians of St. Paul. The circumcision bit is dealt in the next part i.e. in Col 2:11. St. Paul is criticizing the church at Collosians for practising asceticism and the worship of angels and he is advising them that one need not have to worship the lower Aeons because Christ as an Aeon represents the totality of all divine powers(Pleroma) and he represents fullness. Everything in the real realm is made into fullness, the Holy spirit has both Christ and the Father in itself and has the potential to become both and in the same way the Christ has both the Holy Spirit and the Father in himself and therefore individuality is only apparent everything in the real realm is made into fullness and everything in the real realm has the potential to become the Father. If you(The Self) were not made into fullness then will it be possible for you to become the Father? No, right. This was the true message of Christianity. One need not visit a Church to worship the Christ, Holy Spirit and the Father with in you. Some take this too literal and believe in a Supernatural Jesus with a body of human flesh but the use of the word "pleroma" always represents the "totality of divine powers", it represents a Mythical Christ where all the Aeons, the lower angels reside in Christ himself, this should have been the ontology and meaning of the fullness of Christ, the Christ with in you. This was meant for those who sought after the higher teachings of the Kingdom of God. They might have died out but their powerful ideas have not, for Valentinus, Christ was a spiritual teacher who reveals the 'Self' with in you and Christ reside in all of us. They didn't encouraged a Super-naturalist Jesus. Nope, they brought us eternal life and taught us to achieve freedom from bondage.

According to St. Paul. The Valentinians recognize it, a legitimate Christian sect.

If one preserves these statements then Christianity will live forever. Colossians 2:9 "Christ has each within him, whether human being or angel or mystery" (Gospel of Philip 56:14-15). "People cannot see anything in the real realm unless they become it...if you have seen the spirit, you have become the spirit; if you have seen Christ, you have become Christ; if you have seen the Father, you will become the Father" (Gospel of Philip 61:20-32 cf. 67:26-27)

I like to water both the trees. Let both grow. Both science and religion fall under one roof, this is the reason why we have Philosophy of science and we have a Philosophy of religion. These are real fields of study, for example - Jonathon Duqette is a philosopher of Religion and Bernard D'Espagnat is a philosopher of Science. Philosophers can question the assumptions and foundations of science and scientific realism is one of the assumptions of science and the recent findings from science itself has raised concerns over the belief of scientific realism among the scientists. The relationship of Science and Religion is an important part of the study. Just because one is a theist doesn't mean he makes no contribution to humanity, Occam's Razor was himself a theist and believed in God, Kenneth Miller, an evolutionary biologist is also a theist and criticizes Intelligent Design, so just because someone is a theist doesn't mean he scores low in IQ tests. I suppose when you mean theists you mean Religion, go to the bottom of the philosophy of science wiki page and see who is on the top of the list of all the philosophers of Science, yes, its Plato, the same philosopher who spoke about the "Intelligible Father". One can not deny the pagan roots of Science and Religion. Religion offers a wide variety of fruits and the origin of ancient medicine was from Religion. I am after the pleroma of God and not seeking a zombie. It was mentioned to note that Religion actually deals with the real noumenon world. ["At times Teresa's agonies and ecstasies were so violent that reports were that her room shook and the other nuns were frightened"]. To show that Religion is not something which only happens inside our heads or to ignore it as hallucinations.

Once you have understood that the mind is something different from the human brain and that the empirical reality which includes also the brain and that the attributes of particles doesn't exist independent of the mind and realize that mind alone exists out there in the physical world then what's behind the human mind is the "Intellect" and what's behind the Intellect is the "Pleroma of God" representing the totality of divine powers and this is the reason why I insist that science has found God and many are not seeing it. This is what all the religions of the world are saying. Luke 8:10 He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, "'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.' Mystics have already laid out the hypothesis and they have already laid out the script, scientists as always are very slow to realize this. Realized Eschatology - Christianity Its inevitable.

You got to respect Religion and Science. God is an anthropomorphic being even though he is ineffable, he has a form and he is formless, he comes in dual so he is androgynous, he can manifest both in the feminine as well as in the masculine aspect. These cannot be understood with our limited intellect and its wrong to compare God with what we see things in our natural world, it should be taken in a allegorical way. I don't know about astrology so I am not going to talk about the "The Mayan Factor", yes, its important to study different cultures but we got to respect the views of that culture and understand them in their own milieu and we need to stop using New Age terminologies and misinterpret their culture with modern scientific terms, we need to view the nature just as they viewed it. I am talking serious Religion here and not New Age stuff. Using the word Brahman even makes things more complicated because no one knows what it is, a better word to use it is the "Pleroma" and it represents the fullness or the totality of divine powers and we need to talk more about the Pleroma. We never know how things will change in the future. John F Kennedy's speech http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0G5IIjAfx43.mp3 President Truman's speech http://s0.vocaroo.com/media/download_temp/Vocaroo_s0kWVEjtjJwK.mp3

In fact Kurt Gödel was the first one to start the argument. The arguments against strong AI have been already laid out by Lucas and Penrose. The Lucas-Penrose Argument about Gödel’s Theorem I don't think anyone can simulate conscious thought ever. Or it suggests that you doesn't want to learn anything about religion and what other scientists who argue for a God hypothesis are saying, did you watched the David Mermin video, the recent findings in science and religion are leading us to an anthropomorphic theistic view of our existence.

That's a big joke, people are getting hurt and falling unconscious while trying to test religious claims, you need to wake up to this fact. Science is not all there is. I very well know that the epistemology of science is different from the epistemology of Religion, I doesn't want to mix science and religion based on the same epistemological ground but there is a common point at which they both are converging. This God hypothesis lies outside of science, it is from Religion and you just cannot decide what's rubbish and what's not, don't think that you completely understand the nature around you and other ways of knowing things should be allowed. Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner As said, there are other philosophical disciplines waiting to explain the nature of our cosmos based on a different epistemology, see above. Nature is fuzzy, its wrong to make concrete perspectives of the nature of reality which we are living in.

Yes, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and others believed in the Deist concept of God where God creates the cosmos and doesn't interfere with it but such a concept of God is turning out to be very unlikely. The concept of God that is sounding more likely is the concept where gods play around with human life. No, monotheistic views was developed very early in Human history and its highly philosophical. When you use the word Holy Father or God, what concept you have of him in your mind? What do you know about his ontology? Father or God actually represents Fullness, everything is contained in him, all Archons reside in him, all gods emanate from him, the world is in him, everything is in his fullness, there is nothing outside of the Father. When we refer to as the Father or the God he doesn't represent just one being, but actually the totality of divine orders, he represents fullness. Its in the Bible and its in the Isha Upanishad. Yes, taking the literal interpretation of any religions is like wiping out the history of the world and walking blind-folded. Its true that other concepts of God are discussed very less in this forum. Aurobindo had other thoughts in his mind.

No, those religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam should be understood and defined in the context of Hellenistic and Egyptian priests. Philo of Alexandria. Philo's view of God.

Please read the following statement. I don't have to be rude. "Our forefathers who discovered or received Vedic truth, did not arrive at it either by intellectual speculation or by logical reasoning. They attained it by actual & tangible experience in the spirit,—by spiritual & psychological observation, as we may say, & what they thus experienced, they understood by the instrumentality of the intuitive reason." - Aurobindo. Without an intuitive access to the numinous you will never understand the truth behind the Vedas and the Upanishads and all your linguistic and logical arguments are not suffice and incomparable with the wisdom obtained from intuitive reason solely based on experiences. If you want to learn this doctrine then you must apply eastern standards to it.

I am afraid, there is a law. Just go by evidence. This is the reason why atheists criticize theists that they don't agree with a concept of God with each other. God is a religious concept and it belongs to Religion, don't corrupt the word God.

Those are anthropomorphic gods with whom you can have a dialogue with, they have forms and they are formless, they exist in a different realm. Remember this is the true Advaitic philosophical doctrine. How do you think Aurobindo is agreeing with you? He is actually criticizing the positivism of science and logic of the metaphysicians. Its very clear that Aurobindo is criticizing the metaphysicians for applying logic and reasoning to study the Vedas and the Upanishads. The seers of Vedas and the Upanishads arrived at the truth by Revelation not through logic or based on empiricism. This is what he is criticizing, stop applying your metaphysical approach to the Upanishads, your methodology to study the Vedas and the Upanishads is wrong. Yes, the Upanishads and the Vedas take the gods very seriously and they exist in a different realm. Aurobindo is right that they are more psychological. The sacrifices to gods were meant to be psychological. There is no better way of criticizing someone's view when they are absolutely wrong. What do you call the muddle, I call the very soul of the Religions of the world.

The Upanishads have no gods? Will you stop misrepresenting these traditions for god sake? The Vedas and the Upanishads is based on Kathenotheism, Do you know what Kathenotheism is? Kathenotheism "For the language of the Vedanticwriters ceased to be understood; their figures, symbols of thought, shades of expression became antique & unintelligible. Hence passages which, when once fathomed, reveal a depth of knowledge & delicacy of subtle thought almost miraculous in its wealth & quality, strike the casual reader today as a mass of childish, obscure & ignorant fancies characteristic of an unformed and immature thinking. Rubbish & babblings of humanity’s nonage an eminent Western scholar has termed them not knowing that it was not the text but his understanding of it that was rubbish & the babblings of ignorance." - Aurobindo, Commentary on the Isha Upanishad. Suffice to say your understanding of the Vedas and the Upanishads sucks.

Its just you need to know when to take things literal and when to take things allegorical. Gnosticism and the New Testament The Gospel of John is indeed very mystical. Its in all the religions of the world but scientists are very slow to realize this. Yes, the lost side of Christianity is coming back. A very big mistake.