Does it exist before science....

[Yerda]

Discovering god through science would win you a Nobel Prize, fame and fortune for ever, that is surely enough insentive.
Additionally, there are the likes of The Templeton Foundation that sponsor such research.
Then of course Henry Morris, Answers in Genesis, Michael Behe and many more all try to prove god through science

I see. I don't know if "science looking hard" is a fair way to characterise this. The John Templeton Foundation is a bit iffy but funds a lot of research and conferences - the others are just chancers. They have more in common with tobacco and oil company misinformation panels than scientific outfits. They don't carry out much research, if any, and the whole idea is not to use science but to abuse it.

I agree that discovering god through science would be massive. Not sure how it would be possible though.

 

[Polymath257]

We don’t have to hypothesise the existence of the sun though, do we? A child can have first hand visceral experience of it, without the need to push back the barriers of understanding just to confirm it’s there.

But, again, that is mostly because we are using light to detect it.

Suppose, instead, that we were blind. We could say that certain times were warmer and that the heat source appears to move during the day. We *would* then need to hypothesize the existence of the sun in order to explain our observations. But, the detection of the heat would *also* be a direct detection of the sun.

The whole issue with dark matter is that it doesn't interact with light. That is what makes it 'dark'. And we know that there are fundamental particles that do not interact with light (like neutrinos). That makes them difficult to detect because we are so light oriented and light gives so much information.

But, in the case of dark matter, we have gravitational lensing. And I would say that is direct detection of dark matter, just as any other sort of refraction would be direct detection of the refracting medium.

And whilst light may create all sorts of illusions, especially when refracted through the ubiquitous substance we call water, intimate first hand awareness of the qualities of both is endemic to every living creature. Hardly so with dark matter or dark energy.

Yes, we have evolved to interact with light. it is part of our genetics.

Let's give a sequence of situations. Which are 'direct detection'?

1. I look at my wife in a lighted room and see her face.

2. I look at my wife's reflection in a mirror and see her face.

3. I look through a pair of binoculars and see my wife's face.

4. I look through a pair of binoculars to a mirror in which my wife's face is reflected.

5. I am under water and look up and see my wife's face above the water.

6. I am under water and look down at a mirror and see my wife's face above the water.

7. I am above water and look with binoculars at a mirror under water and see my wife's face while she is above water.

8. I use infrared binoculars to see my wife in infrared light.

9. I use infrared binoculars to detect my wife's reflection in a mirror.

10. I use infrared binoculars to detect the reflection of my wife's face from a mirror under water.

I think you can see where I am going with this. In my mind *all* of these are 'direct detection'. ALL are using the properties of light, water, and mirrors to allow me to detect my wife.

 

[Polymath257]

I see. I don't know if "science looking hard" is a fair way to characterise this. The John Templeton Foundation is a bit iffy but funds a lot of research and conferences - the others are just chancers. They have more in common with tobacco and oil company misinformation panels than scientific outfits. They don't carry out much research, if any, and the whole idea is not to use science but to abuse it.

I agree that discovering god through science would be massive. Not sure how it would be possible though.

And until there is a way to detect a spiritual realm reliably, it should be under the category of 'speculation', not 'knowledge'. Furthermore, without ways that could potentially give reliable detection (whether or not they have yet been done), there is really no meaning to the question of existence at all.

We know the meaning of the existence of something when we know how we could detect it. Until then, it is just a form of adult fiction.

 

[Yerda]

And until there is a way to detect a spiritual realm reliably, it should be under the category of 'speculation', not 'knowledge'. Furthermore, without ways that could potentially give reliable detection (whether or not they have yet been done), there is really no meaning to the question of existence at all.

We know the meaning of the existence of something when we know how we could detect it. Until then, it is just a form of adult fiction.

Sure, this seems reasonable to me.

Some people believe they can "detect the spiritual realm" reliably but until they can write down a set of instructions that can reliably guide others to make the same "detection" it should be considered speculation by the rest of us. I wouldn't go as far as calling it fiction. They could be right but some things are inherently subjective and kind of hard to demonstrate to others.

 

[Yerda]

Does something exist before science discover it?

Is it impossible that something that seems invisible do not exist because science has not discovered it yet?

What if something, is impossible to exist if science have not yet discovered it?

Hi.

Of course things existed before science discovered them. It's either that or the act of investigation creates large aspects of reality that it turns out we need to explain the parts we can see, hear, touch etc.

If God exists is there any means to show this? You could be absolutely certain that you're experiencing God but to me it just sounds like conscious experience created and fully contained by you. Just a thing that a conscious system can do - no more special than tasting the food you're eating. Even if you're right.

Does this make sense to you?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Hi.

Of course things existed before science discovered them. It's either that or the act of investigation creates large aspects of reality that it turns out we need to explain the parts we can see, hear, touch etc.

If God exists is there any means to show this? You could be absolutely certain that you're experiencing God but to me it just sounds like conscious experience created and fully contained by you. Just a thing that a conscious system can do - no more special than tasting the food you're eating. Even if you're right.

Does this make sense to you?

I believe God exists yes, I don't have a verifiable evidence or proof because it's my belief not science, but spiritual belief.

 

[Yerda]

I believe God exists yes, I don't have a verifiable evidence or proof because it's my belief not science, but spiritual belief.

Fair enough. What does it mean to you to say that God exists?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Fair enough. What does it mean to you to say that God exists?

God to me exists everywhere, but to begin to understand God, one has to open our spiritual heart.
But God is also a non physical being

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do not disagree with you on what science is and are used for.

But a lot of discussion about Gods existence are stopped because some claim there is no evidence, then they use science to say, only the physical world exist.

But they can not know, since science has not vet discovered the realm of God. Spiritual masters have.

So say that only the physical world exists is philosophy and not science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't say something exists just because you just want it to exist. Simply dosent work that way. ;0]

...

Well, I am choosing to do something and or something else as both possible, only one of them will exist dereddening on what I choose.
You confuse objective and subjective.

 

[Spirit of Light]

So say that only the physical world exists is philosophy and not science.

A better way is to say science has not yet been able to detect the spiritual realms (unseen to human eyes)

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Exactly, one has to look at religious belief and science as two different aspects of life

But there is more than those 2.

 

[Spirit of Light]

But there is more than those 2.

Yes

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A better way is to say science has not vet been ablr to detect the spiritual realms (unseen to human eyes)

Well, even for the everyday world not all humans actions can be done only based on evidence as per science.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well, even for the everyday world not all humans actions can be done only based on evidence as per science.

Both realms co exist, so both will have effect on each other, in my understanding

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, this seems reasonable to me.

Some people believe they can "detect the spiritual realm" reliably but until they can write down a set of instructions that can reliably guide others to make the same "detection" it should be considered speculation by the rest of us. I wouldn't go as far as calling it fiction. They could be right but some things are inherently subjective and kind of hard to demonstrate to others.

And I would call those things 'opinions'.

I reliably do not like the taste of tomatoes. Other people reliably like the same taste. The subjectivity means that we are talking about opinions and not knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

I believe God exists yes, I don't have a verifiable evidence or proof because it's my belief not science, but spiritual belief.

And what does that even mean? how does one test a spiritual belief? How can you determine when a spiritual belief is wrong? When there is a disagreement about spiritual beliefs, how is a resolution found?

 

[Polymath257]

God to me exists everywhere, but to begin to understand God, one has to open our spiritual heart.
But God is also a non physical being

OK, so? That doesn't answer the question.

How does one go about finding and opening a spiritual heart?

How does one interpret the sensations from a spiritual heart?

Is it possible two different people will have spiritual hearts that disagree? In that case, are both right? if not, how do we determine at least who is wrong?

I frankly have no idea what you even mean by the term 'spiritual heart'. Is it possible I don't have one? if I do and am unaware of it, how can I detect it?

 

[Polymath257]

A better way is to say science has not vet been ablr to detect the spiritual realms (unseen to human eyes)

Well, then please enlighten science and describe how to detect such. Since you seem to be so convinced spiritual realms exist, you must have some way of detecting such. Let us know so we can test your ideas and see which ones are more than simple opinions.

 

[Spirit of Light]

And what does that even mean? how does one test a spiritual belief? How can you determine when a spiritual belief is wrong? When there is a disagreement about spiritual beliefs, how is a resolution found?

In discussion with a spiritual teach who walked the path before, who has pondered about the same questions.
And by use of the scriptures to guide the person through the challenges one facing in daily life.

One build faith within ones own being when study and practicing the teaching, and when gaining understanding from the practice.

A spiritual lifestyle is a personal path trough life so the "evidence" are personal and may not be easy for others to understand.
To verify for ones own being if the current belief is incorrect/less right, its again during the study where a deeper understanding of the scriptures will arise when faith get stronger and one become more wise.