Tag Archives: Zuni

Knowing What God and Man Is

Sensing the soul of things.

ALL concepts of God in the opinion of mainstream science are unscientific, because materialism has no way to quantify or measure her existence.

Indeed, as H. P. Blavatsky declared “modern science believes not in the soul of things.” (The Secret Doctrine 1:272)

She also published an article in her magazine titled The Soul of Things (The Theosophist, Vol. 1v, No. 10) noting:

“Psychometry (soul-measuring) is a Greek word to express the faculty—natural, but ordinarily latent in us—by which the inner self cognizes the things of the spiritual (or, if you please, dynamic) world of causes. . . . “

“Step by step, these researches proved the truth of the old Aryan dogma that the Akâśa (Ether) is the cradle and grave of objective nature; and that it holds imperishably the records of everything that ever existed, every phenomenon that ever occurred in the outer world.” 

The poet/artist William Blake intuitively saw “a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower,” that most of us would probably have passed by without noticing. (Auguries of Innocence)

Continue reading

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: God’s Invisible Hand

Sensing the soul of things.

ALL concepts of God in the opinion of mainstream science are unscientific, because materialism has no way to quantify or measure her existence.

Indeed, as H. P. Blavatsky declared “modern science believes not in the soul of things.” (The Secret Doctrine 1:272)

She also published an article in her magazine titled The Soul of Things (The Theosophist, Vol. 1v, No. 10) noting:

“Psychometry (soul-measuring) is a Greek word to express the faculty—natural, but ordinarily latent in us—by which the inner self cognizes the things of the spiritual (or, if you please, dynamic) world of causes. . . . “

“Step by step, these researches proved the truth of the old Aryan dogma that the Akâśa (Ether) is the cradle and grave of objective nature; and that it holds imperishably the records of everything that ever existed, every phenomenon that ever occurred in the outer world.” 

The poet/artist William Blake intuitively saw “a world in a grain of sand, and heaven in a wild flower,” that most of us would probably have passed by without noticing. (Auguries of Innocence)

Continue reading

Invisible Hand

GOD concepts are in mainstream science’s opinion unscientific because they have no way to explain or measure the idea of deity.

In the debate on intelligent design, the Christian evangelist Randal Rauser properly complains about modern scientific methods.

Science shuns any concepts not based on established models. Intelligent design, Rauser says, can only be recognized as a valid ‘scientific’ explanation “if bound by the laws of physics.”

On this basis, he says, “if God is any part of the proposal, it is by definition unscientific,” —and all claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy of Intelligent Design or God must be disregarded, because science has an inherent bias.

“If therefore we don’t know the hidden or as yet undiscovered laws of science, then we don’t know whether an explanation conforms to them or not.

ζ

Theosophists agree. Any honest analysis of the controversy by science should acknowledge merely that the concepts do not conform to the “laws of physics as presently understood,” or the laws “as they ultimately are”—not dismissed out of hand.

Mme. Blavatsky insisted that science was intentionally limited, because unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads—a  standard science admits, but does not follow.

She cited as an example the periodic table, purported to be a complete and accurate account of all chemical elements.

ε

Continue reading

Veils of Science

GOD is by modern science’s definition unscientific because it has as no way to explain or measure the idea of deity.

In the debate on intelligent design, the Christian evangelist Randal Rauser properly complains about modern scientific methods.

Science shuns any concepts not based on established models. Intelligent design, Rauser says, can only be recognized as a valid ‘scientific’ explanation “if bound by the laws of physics.”

On this basis, he says, “if God is any part of the proposal, it is by definition unscientific,” —and all claims of legitimacy or illegitimacy of Intelligent Design or God must be disregarded, because science has an inherent bias.

“If therefore we don’t know the hidden or as yet undiscovered laws of science, then we don’t know whether an explanation conforms to them or not.

ζ

Theosophists agree. Any honest analysis of the controversy by science should acknowledge merely that the concepts do not conform to the “laws of physics as presently understood,” or the laws “as they ultimately are”—not dismissed out of hand.

Continue reading