The Universe includes everything that exists. In the Universe there are billions and billions of stars. These stars are distributed in the space in huge clusters. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of galaxy, star and planets etc. Gravitation can be considered as the cause of various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Human form is superior to all other forms. Withdrawal of gravitational wave from some plane of action is called the death of that form. It can be assumed that gravitation force is ultimate creator. Source of it is ‘God’. Gravitational Field is the supreme soul (consciousness) and its innumerable points of action may be called as individual soul (consciousness). It acts through body and mind. Body is physical entity. Mind can be defined as the function of autonomic nervous system. Electromagnetic waves are its agents through which it works. This can be realized through the practice of meditation and yoga under qualified meditation instruction. This can remove misunderstanding between science and religion and amongst various religions. This is the gist of all religious teachings – past, present and future.

AND

‘In Scientific Terminology Source of Gravitational Wave is God’ I have presented this paper at the 2nd World Congress on Vedic Sciences held at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi on February 9-11, 2007. The Abstract of this paper is given below:

For Centuries, antagonism remained between science and religion. Science and spirituality require to be fused. An integrated philisophy is to be developed. It is written in the scriptures that entire creation is being maintained only through love or force of attraction. In Persian it is known as quvat-i-jaziba. It is on account of this force that the entire creation, which come into existence through the combination of small particles and atoms, is being maintained and sustained. The creation or universe includes everything that exists. In the universe there are billions and billions of stars. They are held together by gravitation and are known as galaxies. Sun is also a star. Various members of the solar system are bound to it by gravitation force. Gravitation force is the ultimate cause of birth and death of a galaxy, star and planet etc. and various forms of animate and inanimate existence. Gravitation force is the ultimate creator, sustainer and destroyer of the universe. These are the three attributes of God. Providence has located within the human body a spiritual faculty. When this faculty is developed like physical and mental faculties we find that Truth-the goal of science and God-the goal of religion are one and the same thing.

Dumb question—i just looked up the defintion of a Deist on the Internet. Forget the question.

Are you a Deist?

You might be one of those who are abandoning Christianity; one for whom religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. You might be right, at least to some extent. Some traditional beliefs are not true, and the “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. Most people don’t dare to confront their religious beliefs, and opt for the status quo, afraid of abandoning the “certainty” of their convictions. Most have become marginalized from the institutional Church, and try to find an environment in which they may fill a vacuum in their lives.

An illuminating book gives hope to you! The author accepted the challenge of finding the One who is recognized, even by Gnostics and atheists—the Existence. “Christianity Reformed From its Roots – A Life Centered in God” is perhaps a generation ahead of the current mentality, but you might find that there is something for you, too!

Bishop John Shelby Spong says of this book that it “rightly points out that those who seek to defend Christianity’s past are also killing Christianity’s future.” I am attaching two reviews of the book by eminent philosophers and thinkers that might give you an idea if this book is an insightful reading for you. You might look also at excerpts of the book at this link of Amazon.com.

Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Author – Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California

http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm

You’ve left your position a little ambiguous, but I’m reading you as an opponent of atheism, and will respond as such. If I’ve misread you, I beg your pardon, and hope my comments add to the discussion never-the-less.

The relevance here is that Atheists are using the “absolute truth” clout of science in order to assert evidence supporting their views as to the origin of mankind, matter, conscious thought, etc.

Could you please motivate this with an actual example?

I am speaking as a student of science (physics and engineering):

As a science graduate myself, I can affirm that you are not the only person on this site with a modicum of technical education. To use this fact to win points in a debate would be a little pretentious. Arguments should stand or fall on their own merits.

Furthermore, in my experience, science students who lack training in philosophical discourse are often vocal but inadequate philosophers. Consider how you have brought the “absolute truth” clout of your scientific training to bear against atheism. This seems a bit hypocritical.

There is no real evidence that can DISPROVE God, as he does not exist in the tangible universe, meaning evidence in support of Atheism cannot be known. Just evidence as to the state of matter, and the known effects of corresponding forces in the universe.

I don’t think it is possible to speak about this issue in terms of evidence for or against atheism. You do atheists a miscredit if you think they would ever argue that God could be “disproved.” Or, perhaps you would set the bar thus high: God should be completely disproved before anyone may raise any doubts soever as to His Existence?

Now, as a student of science, you will no doubt be aware of such statistical notions as null hypotheses vs alternative hypotheses. In the God vs No-God debate, “No God” counts as the null hypothesis. Standard practice accepts the null hypothesis until there is sufficient evidence to reject it. In a way, atheists are simply people wary of making Type I errors.

I anticipate three major arguments by theists against this portrayal of atheists. 1: the significance level for hypothesis-testing has been set too low. 2: indeed, atheists make or at least risk Type II errors by stating, “God does not exist.” 3: the whole question is meaningless and no one is in a position to accept or reject either hypothesis.

Of these objections to the atheist position, I think only the first is really interesting. Firstly, atheists do insure against the proposed Type II error since they often do not emphatically reject the alternative hypothesis. Secondly, those who consider the question meaningless will not really have anything substantial to add to the discussion one way or the other. (Been there, done that.)

On 1., I think the significance level is just fine, myself. I mean, I wouldn’t want homeopathy marketed by pharmaceutical companies as a cure for cancer either.

#

17. salient | December 17, 2007 at 6:11 pm

The atheistic belief set is merely an a-supernatural conviction about existence based on rational interpretation of the evidence..”

The relevance here is that Atheists are using the “absolute truth” clout of science in order to assert evidence supporting their views as to the origin of mankind, matter, conscious thought, etc. I am speaking as a student of science (physics and engineering):
Almost any evidence can be used to support any different theory, such as evolutionary evidence counter productively being used for intelligent design for example.
There is no real evidence that can DISPROVE God, as he does not exist in the tangible universe, meaning evidence in support of Atheism cannot be known. Just evidence as to the state of matter, and the known effects of corresponding forces in the universe.

Therefore you can say that Atheism is not a religion,

but

you CANNOT say that Atheism is not religiously significant.

I couldn’t react yesterday, because I couldn’t begin to explain just how much was wrong with that statement…..this sums it up quite nicely though, thank you. I’ll be ready for that one next time.

PFaith: It is true that sometimes ex-christians will “lash out” at other faith groups, but that’s not explaining enough. At worst, it may suggest ex-faith atheists are naturally inclined to seek revenge of some sort. In all but the worst case scenarios, I don’t think that is true.

Myself, I wasn’t angry at faith groups but I was certainly angry at politicians who used their faith to pull some amazing stunts. I was angry that an unreasonable zealot was trying to break my home in two while simultaneously trying to aggressively convert me. I was angry at being called irrelevant by those seeking power (G. H. W. Bush, M. Romney) when the only reason and truth seemed to be on my side. I’m angry about tax breaks to groups who coordinate attacks on foundations of democracy or science. And I’m angry about repeated and sleazy coordinated attacks on our school system’s ability to teach our children. A lot of the time, I’m just angry. I could, as many here could, write all night about what angers me. But I’m not walking around angry, looking for a fight. In fact, I wish they’d just do their own thing and not have to mess with mine so much of the time. Many will take a swing after receiving 50 shoves, though – and why not? If you don’t want to get bit – stop kicking the dog.

But I don’t say a word unless my view is overtly attacked, or I am being rudely confronted and challenged by a christian for the purpose of conversion. In the future, I’m sure I’ll be vocal if my child’s education or ability to think is being threatened by faithful interference. I believe I will.

I have faith in it, but that doesn’t make me religious either.

JC

You said: Is this some form of self-affirmation that your faith (which by definition is held despite lack of evidence) is strong enough to survive logic and evidence? Is this the spiritual equivalent of arm wrestling?
I’m not being facetious, I merely want to understand.

I think there is a fundamental difference between our understanding of the word “faith.” To you, faith is a belief that is held despite evidence. To me, faith isn’t something that happens in my head, but rather is a feeling of trust in something greater then myself. The problem is that most Western religions teach that in order to have the type of faith that I have, people would need to hold to faith as you define it… But they are, indeed, two different things – one is in the head, and one is in the heart. Because most people (including myself) were raised with the definition in which trust necessitates belief, it becomes difficult to keep the two separate… Hence the need to have your faith challenged by reason. Think of it as a tempering process.

It seems, however, that my conversation with you is becoming increasingly long winded and off topic. Out of respect for the Webmaster, this will be my last comment on this particular blog entry. I’d like to continue our conversation over e-mail, if it is agreeable to you. You can find an e-mail form on my Blog under my “About” Page. If not, I’ll no doubt see you again later on.

Namaste.

I agree with expanding that to include any text which makes those same claims. It doesn’t matter who declares the text ‘sacred’ or what symbols it uses to represent and communicate that meanting. What is important is the change not what belief inspires the change. I think Atheism is valuable for religion because it keeps it in check, but I also think there is more room for agreement if both sides will stop being fundamentalist in their approach.

Don’t forget that we have no writings of Jesus, so anything we say “jesus said” we have to run through the filter of context. We have to free it from the bias of the authors who created the stories and the peole who are interpreting it.

I agree that there is little he said that was much different than his teachers. The truth is that most world religions say those same things. They are wonderful things to say. That is what the writer of the Gospel of John was trying to say; “in the beginning was the logos (logic/wisdom)” and “the logos became flesh and dwelt amoung us”. Those words are not meant to deify Jesus. They are meant to symbolical say that this wisdom has always been around. It has been known by many religions. It came to life in the lives of people who heard it and actually did it (became flesh).

Religion is only goofy when people take these ancient symbolic stories literally and try to claim its symbols and stories are the only valuable manifestations of that wisdom.