Modern Materialistic Science vs Ontology

WrongScience.png

Modern Materialistic Science Ontology
What is taught as science in schools today What was taught, and what will be taught to young scientists in the future
Physics and Metaphysics are separate
And metaphysics is pushed into the realm of people who believe in crazy sky god
Physics and Metaphysics are one continuum.
There is as much to learn about the world in meditation as there is in the classroom.
The universe is dead. It is a machine. It is a clock that is running down. The universe is alive, and it is co-creating reality with all of the beings within it.
It is all random chance.
It is all meaningless chaos.
Interactions have meaning.
Nothing is by chance.
Life just happened by random chance. And through mutations single celled organisms turned into walking/talking apes. The Universe is a life creating machine.
We will find life everywhere in the universe.

Just a small list of comparisons show that an Ontological view or our world is MUCH different than what is currently taught in Rock-e-person created universities.

How can you even compare a living, growing universe, with a dead, uncaring, construct that is running down into oblivion?

And soon, many people will wonder how we ever believed that the universe was some wind-up clock.

- - - - - - -

Do you have to believe in God?

"Ontology sure sounds a lot like religion! Do we all have to believe in the amazing, white bearded, sky God?"

There is two big problems in dealing with such claims.

  1. The same people who were behind subverting universities and what/how they taught, are the same people who have been subverting religion. So much of what people consider "stupid" about Christianity, was injected from outside. You can even follow the changes made to the Bible over time. There is so much to clean up.
  2. Knowing God is a personal journey. No person or church can truly tell you what God is. And no person or Church can keep you from finding God. We, misusing scientific methods, have made a logical fallacy of assuming that since we can't prove God's existence, then God doesn't exist. It is time to remove that pitiful, science sounding, rhetoric from our vocabulary. People can choose to be agnostic, and people can choose to meet God and get to know him personally. There is no mocking or belittling done from God on which choice you choose.

It really didn't help that Modern Materialistic Science lied to people so much. Way back in college, i lost my religion when studying Anthropology. And then i learned that most of what i learned in Anthropology was complete fabricated. Made up. The time tables, the ages, man evolving from single celled life, all of these things don't have any real support in the stuff we have dug up.

And, it really didn't help that Christianity, especially Catholicism, pitted themselves so against science. Such that they started making really spectacularly stupid dogmas.

- - - - - - -

We are part of creation

What science calls "the observer effect" is really easy to comprehend if you start from an ontological viewpoint.

From a materialistic viewpoint, it is impossible, and is explained by "the measurement" has enough energy to change things. But, that really, only sorta, explains only one aspect. And then you have the Placebo Effect. An effect so measured that it HAS TO BE INCLUDED in any medical trial.

To materialistic science, the universe is supposed to run on set rules, just like a machine, and so these variances shouldn't even be possible. The ivory towered physicists want to get rid of it, but they can't. It shows up in all of the data.

Now, if you believe we are all part of the creation process, then it is obvious that when we do an experiment, our thoughts, feelings and expectations will effect the experiment. In the future, we will have to note these things down alongside the measurements from the experiment.

- - - - - - -

Modern science hides behind complexity

Einstein's (plagiarized) Theory of Relativity is so complex most people can't even get their heads around it. But, that wasn't complex enough. Now we have String Theory, which is so complex it can never be tested.

If you make everything really complex, then few look into it.

Fortunately, the rules of our universe are simple. Lots of interconnected simple formulas. You might say it is simplex.

Such as, the speed of light is just how fast the lump of energy (we call it photon right now) moving between each area defined by the grid of the Plank Constant sized grid in the aether. It is like saying that the pixels on the computer screen are lit up one after the next, making it look like movement. (and the plank constant will be found to be different depending on how much stuff is in that area of space.

- - - - - - -

Many people believe that whatever we discover in our research, it will just expand what we know, however our understanding of our universe is so messed up, so backwards, upside down, and inside out, that we will be better off just throwing out our Modern College Science text books.

It really is a completely different way of looking at the world around us.

And from that, in the next century our technology level will completely change. Far faster than even science fiction writers would have dreamed. Flying cars and clean, continuous energy solutions are just the beginning.

Soon we will be making things by imagining them. Bringing their shape from the aether into plasma and then into solid form.

After we throw of the shackles that have kept us in a dead universe, we will find so much more life, passion and joy for everyone.

- - - - - - -

All images in this post are my own original creations.

Sort:  

untitled.gif

Science says the universe is a dead machine, but I think it’s alive. We’re part of it, not just watching. That changes everything, literally everything

I think it's a clever trick from to invade religious beliefs from the outside in, many of the changes made over the years were clearly aimed at a single narrative, which is only the physical universe exists(or something along those lines). I think there's an esoteric aspect to some religions, which has kept the essence of reality, for the most part.

Sometimes, it seems to be that we're currently living at the intersection of both modern materialistic science and Ontology, hopefully, the former will eventually give way to the latter to shine in its full glory. The Sun can't be eclipsed any longer :)

"Physics and Metaphysics are one continuum."

No, and it's a silly claim. Metaphysics aren't real. So einfach is das. Science isn't Scientism, and it appears you confuse them, and thus equate fantasy and wishful thinking with empirical evidence and reproducible observation. They are not the same. Baseless claims sourced in fantastic dogmas are simply insuperable, and your faith isn't backed up by demonstrable evidence. Were such potential to it, you would be capable of providing it.

Thanks!

Where does Near Death Experiences fall into your idea of science?

Are they quantifiable? Are there notable prerequisites and repeatable metrics?

They're incapable of testability. Nothing about them is potential of science - actual knowledge - and they are only anecdotes. Inform me when you can set up experiments to test whatever theories you have about NDE's, and I'll carefully examine your proposals for evidence of bias. I'll be very happy to find none, and carefully consider any reproducible evidence.

LOL Who are we kidding? That will never, ever happen, because some girls will dance around with crystals on a full moon and that will be PROOF that Satan is God, or smth.

The problem here is that the evidence for NDE is legion.

And then we run into the problem of:

  • Is there a tree? Most people can see, touch, experience the tree. (but can we really prove it?)
  • Is there an aura? There are people that can see auras. There is camera methods to show that there is something there. But, since most people cannot see it, do we say that it does not exist?
  • Is there NDEs? There are a lot of people who have experienced much the same thing. Basically, they have all come back and said, "there is a tree there"

And what happens when Satan is proven to have been a god, that was written about in the Torah? The problem is, this involves aliens, and a lot of old texts, and a particular interpretation.

And many scientists have tried to induce NDEs, And many have experienced something. How do we handle that information? Is it proof or evidence?

"...the evidence for NDE is legion."

What is legion are claims without any evidence.

"Most people can see, touch, experience the tree."

That's what evidence is. It is means of verification that something is actual. Claims are not evidence.

"...camera methods..."

LOL

You're floundering, and you know it. You're Flailing about trying to come up with a sound basis for insuperable claims. At this point you have realized you're barking up the wrong tree, and should be doing something else.

On that we agree.

Congratulations @builderofcastles! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)

You published more than 1000 posts.
Your next target is to reach 1100 posts.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Check out our last posts:

Our Hive Power Delegations to the March PUM Winners
Feedback from the April Hive Power Up Day
Hive Power Up Month Challenge - March 2025 Winners List