How can we know "God" exists?

[Windwalker]

One more point, not that you will bother to read this since you have this all figured out, apparently.

"A: In the previous causal level, you are so absorbed in the unmanifest dimension that you might not even notice the manifest world. You are discovering Emptiness, and so you ignore Form. But at the ultimate or nondual level, you integrate the two. You see that Emptiness appears or manifests itself as Form, and that Form has as its essence Emptiness. In more concrete terms, what you are is all things that arise. All manifestation arises, moment by moment, as a play of Emptiness. If the causal was like a radiant moonlit night, this is like a radiant autumn day.

What appear as hard or solid objects “out there” are really transparent and translucent manifestations of your own Being or Isness. They are not obstacles to God, only expressions of God. They are therefore empty in the sense of not being and obstruction or impediment. They are a free expression of the Divine. As the Mahamudra tradition succinctly puts it, “All is Mind. Mind is Empty. Empty is freely-manifesting. Freely-manifesting is self-liberating.”

The freedom that you found at the causal level—the freedom of Fullness and Emptiness—that freedom is found to extend to all things, even to this “fallen” world of sin and samsara. Therefore, all things become self-liberated. And this extraordinary freedom, or absence of restriction, or total release—this clear bright autumn day—this is what you actually experience at this point. But then “experience” is the wrong word altogether. This realization is actually of the nonexperiential nature of Spirit. Experiences come and go. They all have a beginning in time, and an end in time. Even subtle experiences come and go. They are all wonderful, glorious, extraordinary. And they come, and they go.

But this nondual “state” is not itself another experience. It is simply the opening or clearing in which all experiences arise and fall. It is the bright autumn sky through which the clouds come and go—it is not itself another cloud, another experience, another object, another manifestation. This realization is actually of the utter fruitlessness of experience, the utter futility of trying to experience release or liberation. All experiences lose their taste entirely—these passing clouds.

You are not the one who experiences liberation; you are the clearing, the opening, the emptiness, in which any experience comes and goes, like reflections on the mirror. And you are the mirror, the mirror mind, and not any experienced reflection. But you are not apart from the reflections, standing back and watching. You are everything that is arising moment to moment. You can swallow the whole cosmos in one gulp, it is so small, and you can taste the entire sky without moving an inch.

This is why, in Zen, it is said that you cannot enter the Great Samadhi: it is actually the opening or clearing that is ever-present, and in which all experience—and all manifestation—arises moment to moment. It seems like you “enter” this state, except that once there, you realize there was never a time that this state wasn’t fully present and fully recognized—”the gateless gate”. And so you deeply understand that you never entered this state; nor did the Buddhas, past of future, ever enter this state.

In Dzogchen, this is the recognition of mind’s true nature. All things, in all worlds, are self-liberated as they arise. All things are like sunlight on the water of a pond. It all shimmers. It is all empty. It is all light. It is all full, and it is all fulfilled. And the world goes on its ordinary way, and nobody notices at all."

- See more at: http://integrallife.com/integral-post/stages-meditation#sthash.iFFnFcsI.dpuf​

I highly suggest reading the whole article, as it has good information in there for you, should you care to expand your understanding.

 

[Windwalker]

Fine,...for now your brain fires neurons in a pattern that you equate with the experience of non-duality,...all the best for your future unfolding.

You judge me, knowing nothing.

 

[Bartholomæus]

My thoughts to the original question: How can we know God exist?

Science can't prove that God exists. Also science can't prove that God do not exists.
I do believe in God existence because of what i know as an fact: What is made requires a maker. For example, look around your home. Tables, chairs, desks, beds, pots, pans, plates, and other eating utensils all require a maker, as do walls, floors, and ceilings. Those are simple things, yet no one would claim they came to be by themselves. So if simple things require a maker, is it not logical that complex things require an even more intelligent maker?


Our universe (which is awesome)

A watch requires a watchmaker. What of our infinitely more complex solar system, with the Sun and its planets revolving around it with split-second precision century after century? What of the awesome galaxy we live in, called the Milky Way, with its more than 100 billion stars? Have you ever stopped at night to gaze at the Milky Way? Were you impressed? Then think of the incredibly vast universe that contains untold billions of galaxies like our Milky Way! Too, the heavenly bodies are so reliable in their movements century after century that they have been compared to precision timepieces.
If a watch, which is relatively simple, implies the existence of a watchmaker (and it definitely does), surely the infinitely more complex and awesome universe implies the existence of a designer and maker.


There are many othere things that for me are 'proof' of a 'maker' (God). I will post some more of them later.

 

[Tiberius]

And how would you know the difference?

One actually carries a coherent meaning that is readily understandable. The other does not.

I have never said that. "Wrong" is your word. You must think in terms of black and white, True/False. I don't. And there is the disconnect at the outset. These are not concrete, black and white things I'm talking about.

And yet reality is a concrete thing.

Why do you need concrete? That is the entire issue here. Life isn't concrete. It's anything but that, except in some artificial reality of our own making.

Again, reality is a concrete thing.

This is foolish. Of course there is part of the brain that activates. That activation is not the experience itself. There is content in it. If it's all just physical, then why try to "understand" anything? Why not just be a bundles of responses.

That "activation" is not the experience? Prove it.

Because scientists have been able to stimulate the areas of the brain associated with certain emotional experiences and create that experience.

And the brain is nothing but a bunch a cells, and the cells are nothing but a bunch of molecules, and the molecules are nothing but a bunch of atoms. Congratulations, you don't exist. Nothing of you is real. You are just a magical collection of atoms pretending to be a brain, pretending to be you.

Do you actually think this is any kind of sensible argument? By that logic, I can say, you live in a house, a house is nothing but a bunch of bricks, bricks are made of clay, clay is a kind of dirt, therefore you live in dirt.

Then they are God. (Except they're too mythological for my tastes).

So you CAN see the stupidity of the argument? Why then did you use it?

I exist. Everything represents God. Not God as you define it maybe.

If everything represents God, then it would seem you are using the word God when you really mean the word universe.

Ditto.

Do you mean you are agreeing with me or that your previous answer applies here as well?

You have not.

Yes I have. The fact that you can't see the difference between the components of a thing and the interactions between those components is not my problem.

Let's put it this way. You and I are looking at the same thing. We see things differently. Which one is seeing the "real" world? Please answer that to the best of your ability.

What does this have to do with anything?

I said that the real world doesn't need me to exist in order for that real world to exist. In other words, the real world will exist the way it does, even if I had never been born.

The fact that we have different points of view makes no difference to the real world. it only makes a difference to OUR PERCEPTIONS of the real world. And the real world is not our perceptions of it.

External to myself? When you come to know yourself, these boundaries between you and the world dissolve. That's when it gets interesting.

Here you go again, using the thing you are trying to prove as evidence to show that I am wrong (and therefore you are right). Can we say "circular argument?

LOL. You missed who said this?

Albert Einstein. Good god kid, are you that arrogant you know so much here?

OMG! I guess I was wrong, because Albert Einstein was just so right about everything!

Seriously, he was talking about our perceptions of the real world, not the real world itself.

BTW, I noticed that you ignored some parts of my post. I wonder why?

 

[Tiberius]

"The non-duality"??? Do you not hear duality in this??? This is what Nagarjuna was point at calling it a duality. This is NOT nonduality. Your calling it "Pure Reality", is dualism.


I understand this, but it's not nonduality. It is the Causal state. I have this in meditation, the sublte, the causal, and the nondual. You are not describing nonduality. And you are not speaking to a novice either. What's with you?

Read the article, please, Rude Buddha.

Hey, watch who you're quoting please!

 

[Tiberius]

One more point, not that you will bother to read this since you have this all figured out, apparently.

Just for fun, I will highlight all the parts that are vague, undefined or mumbo jumbo that cannot be shown to operate in the real world...

"A: In the previous causal level, you are so absorbed in the unmanifest dimension that you might not even notice the manifest world. You are discovering Emptiness, and so you ignore Form. But at the ultimate or nondual level, you integrate the two. You see that Emptiness appears or manifests itself as Form, and that Form has as its essence Emptiness. In more concrete terms, what you are is all things that arise. All manifestation arises, moment by moment, as a play of Emptiness. If the causal was like a radiant moonlit night, this is like a radiant autumn day.

What appear as hard or solid objects “out there” are really transparent and translucent manifestations of your own Being or Isness. They are not obstacles to God, only expressions of God. They are therefore empty in the sense of not being and obstruction or impediment. They are a free expression of the Divine. As the Mahamudra tradition succinctly puts it, “All is Mind. Mind is Empty. Empty is freely-manifesting. Freely-manifesting is self-liberating.”

...[/QUOTE]

Gah, that gave me a headache. But it seems that all it is saying is that just as a day is not a cloud that blows past on that day, I can not define myself by a particular thing I have done.

For example, Steven Spielberg can't be defined as the guy who directed Jurassic Park, because that is one small aspect of him. But he can't be defined as the guy who DIDN'T direct Jurassic Park, because he did.

So, I have two comments.

Firstly, this is a very rambling way of saying something quite simple.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the nature of reality.​

 

[Lien]

Read Quran

 

[Trantorfuzz]

Well, in physical and philosophical terms, one could view God as a field whose complex effects are best predicted by assuming that it has intentions, which field created the universe.

I know of no evidence that such a field has ever existed or is ever likely to exist. So for me, God is an object of faith. Once we quit pretending that faith is a way to knowledge, and realize that faith is simply a chosen commitment to act and think under assumptions that have insufficient data to support them, religion becomes humbler and purer.

I haven't made any deity an object of my faith. But if I ever need a religion, I'll invent one.

 

[Tiberius]

Read Quran

Wow, that's a compelling argument.

I've heard people from all different sorts of religions tell me that I'd see the truth, as long as I just read their holy book. But you gotta remember, given that people of so many different religions believe that they are right, somebody's gotta be wrong. Christians and Muslims can;'t both be right. And yet I see Christians presenting the Bible just as enthusiastically as you present the Quran.

So telling someone who doesn't share your faith to read your holy book and suddenly they'll be a believe makes no sense. You're a Sunni Muslim. Would you become a Christian if you read the Bible? Of course not. And I'm not going to suddenly be convinced that Allah created the world just because I read the Quran.

 

[Tiberius]

Once we quit pretending that faith is a way to knowledge, and realize that faith is simply a chosen commitment to act and think under assumptions that have insufficient data to support them, religion becomes humbler and purer.

And less likely to be an accurate description of any existing part of the universe. Or anything beyond the universe (if such a term can be said to apply).

 

[Trantorfuzz]

[FONT=&quot]

Originally Posted by Trantorfuzz: Once we quit pretending that faith is a way to knowledge, and realize that faith is simply a chosen commitment to act and think under assumptions that have insufficient data to support them, religion becomes humbler and purer.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Tiberius wrote: And less likely to be an accurate description of any existing part of the universe. Or anything beyond the universe (if such a term can be said to apply).

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First, whether or not we see faith as a way to knowledge or merely a form of trust has no effect on the likelihood of faith-based claims. For example, when it comes to Abrahamic fundamentalism’s faith-based and demonstrably false claims about the development of life on earth, it makes no difference whether the fundamentalist claims to “know” these claims or whether he merely “trusts in” them—the falsehood remains. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Second, though faith has been proven to be wholly inadequate to the task of scientific description, science in turn is inadequate to the task of assigning significance to reality. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Religions are quite good at the latter, provided that they don’t contradict science, and sure enough, many don’t. Zen Buddhism is perfectly compatible with the sciences. So are liberal Christian denominations, most notably the United Church of Christ. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]By the way, if you think that science has proven that reality has no significance, try designing an empirical test for this. Look for significons, the particles that carry significance. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]By the way, it is perfectly meaningful and scientific to speak of things beyond the universe—namely other universes. For a good layperson’s account of the multiple worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, see physicist David Deutsch’s book, “The Fabric of Reality.” [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As for the title question, “how can we know that God exists,” I say we can’t know. Because, notwithstanding the claims of Dawkins’ theologically and historically illiterate book, “The God Delusion,” the existence of God is not a scientific issue. The Big Deity is also not evident, notwithstanding the claims of mystics. [/FONT]

 

[Almustafa]

most atheists dont trust empirical facts, they trust what other people say about empirical facts...

not every atheist can be a scientist, so they trust in a scientist, putting a middle man in between the individual & absolute truth... thats called faith, because there is faith in a renowned individual who is said to know the secrets of the universe.

for example if you quote steven hawking then you must hold faith in his words
& the same with albert einstein or anyone else for that matter.

how many people have actually performed any test or witnessed "proof" of anything what so ever...
we trust people bold enough to make a theory based on there life experiences....

there was never an end all be all... at least one that can be explained with words.



"The Way that can be walked is not the eternal Way.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of Heaven and Earth.
The named is the mother of all things.

Therefore:
Free from desire you see the mystery.
Full of desire you see the manifestations.
These two have the same origin but differ in name.
That is the secret,
The secret of secrets, The gate to all mysteries."

 

[Tiberius]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]First, whether or not we see faith as a way to knowledge or merely a form of trust has no effect on the likelihood of faith-based claims. For example, when it comes to Abrahamic fundamentalism’s faith-based and demonstrably false claims about the development of life on earth, it makes no difference whether the fundamentalist claims to “know” these claims or whether he merely “trusts in” them—the falsehood remains. [/FONT]

Agreed. With faith being inherently unverifiable, we cannot trust that faith-based conclusions reflect reality in any way.

[FONT=&quot]Second, though faith has been proven to be wholly inadequate to the task of scientific description, science in turn is inadequate to the task of assigning significance to reality. [/FONT]

This assumes that there actually is some objective significance to reality. I doubt that there is. The only significance reality has is the significance we give it.

[FONT=&quot]Religions are quite good at the latter, provided that they don’t contradict science, and sure enough, many don’t. Zen Buddhism is perfectly compatible with the sciences. So are liberal Christian denominations, most notably the United Church of Christ. [/FONT]

I don't think that it's quite the same thing to say that just because one doesn't contradict the other that they are compatible.

[FONT=&quot]By the way, if you think that science has proven that reality has no significance, try designing an empirical test for this. Look for significons, the particles that carry significance. [/FONT]

This is just silly.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

This assumes there actually is some objective significance to reality. I doubt that there is. The only significance reality has is the significance we give it.

Your doubts do not constitute a scientific or empirical defense of the latter claim.

I don't think that it's quite the same thing to say that just because one doesn't contradict the other (religion & science) that they are compatible.

Well, if they don't contradict each other, how are they incompatible?

 

[Tiberius]

Your doubts do not constitute a scientific or empirical defense of the latter claim.

Please explain then how we can determine and/or measure the significance of reality.

Well, if they don't contradict each other, how are they incompatible?

because they don't talk about the same thing. Electrical theory and magical moon fairies are completely compatible, yet it is meaningless for me to use this fact to suggest that magical moon fairies are true because of it.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

[FONT=&quot]

Please explain then how we can determine and/or measure the significance of reality.

Well, we don’t measure reality’s significance scientifically—that’s nonsense. That’s why my idea of “significons—the elementary particles that carry significance” is thoroughly silly. It’s because the idea that significance can be measured scientifically is silly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What religion doctrine can do, and what the sciences aren’t designed to do, is to make intuitive evaluations about how reality comes across to us personally and how we might respond meaningfully. Such evaluations can be made by individuals, but there’s nothing wrong with their being made institutional and therefore more sophisticated. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Buddhism is an excellent example of the latter. To most Buddhists, the universe comes across as a place of impermanence, decay, and consequent inevitable suffering. Our response to this suffering, according to many Buddhists, should be to free ourselves from our tendency to see and cling to the illusory permanence in the world. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Obviously, there is nothing scientific about the latter doctrine. It is an intuitive evaluation of how reality comes across to some of us. What is more, the latter doctrine cannot be proven. What is more, this doctrine is incompatible with the doctrines of other religions. But since different people are bound to have different accounts of the significance of reality, and since such judgments need not aspire to the goals of science, this is not a problem. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
I am not a Christian. But the reasons that I am not a Christian have little to do with science. Unlike moon-fairies, a god that could be proven or disproven by the sciences is simply too limited a being to fit the description of the Abrahamic God. But the universe doesn’t come across to me as a Christian universe. Ebola wasn’t invented by a loving deity, and fertile soil wasn’t invented by a wrathful one.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]At this point, someone might say that the “evaluations” I’ve described don’t warrant any existential claims such as the existence of karma or deities. But frankly, I am inclined to dismiss as dogma the idea that scientific investigation is the only grounds for making existential claims. If one can make an existential claim for purpose A (i.e. scientific explanations of the phenomenal world), why can’t one make existential claims for purpose B (i.e. religious accounts of reality’s significance and character)? Provided, of course, that the latter existential claims don’t conflict with scientific knowledge.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]

[Sciences and religion aren’t compatible] because they don't talk about the same thing. Electrical theory and magical moon fairies are completely compatible, yet it is meaningless for me to use this fact to suggest that magical moon fairies are true because of it.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]The fact that religion and science don’t talk about the same thing doesn’t make them incompatible in principle. Art and science don’t talk about the same thing either. [/FONT]

 

[John Martin]

How do you view God? As a literal metaphysical being in the sky? As a state of being? As a force that transcends all? Not literally real, but a symbol that points to something beyond what we can comprehend?

Is there any evidence for God? Scientific, anecdotal, philosophical or otherwise?

I think that the possibility of God is great, considering how organized and precise the universe is; but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I believe in God.

God is the infinite and creation is the finite aspect of the divine. God and creation are not separated. If we use the analogy of earth and a tree. The earth is the symbol of the divine and the tree is the symbol of creation. The tree is one hundred percent dependent on the earth. The earth can be without the tree but the tree cannot be without the earth. The tree may think that it can exist without the earth( which is impossible in reality but only in imagination). How do we know that God exists? How does a tree know that the earth exists? By realizing that it is one hundred percent dependent on it. It is the same with God.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, we don’t measure reality’s significance scientifically—that’s nonsense. That’s why my idea of “significons—the elementary particles that carry significance” is thoroughly silly. It’s because the idea that significance can be measured scientifically is silly.

RIght, so there is no objective significance to reality. Any significance we find in reality must therefore be the significance we ourselves place on it. I fail to see why science must be the tool we use to place significance on reality. Science is a tool for learning how reality operates. It is not a significance depositor. However, science is the only objective tool we have. I certainly can't think of any others. So any tool we use to place significance must therefore be subjective (unless there is an objective tool, which, as I said, I am not aware of).

What religion doctrine can do, and what the sciences aren’t designed to do, is to make intuitive evaluations about how reality comes across to us personally and how we might respond meaningfully. Such evaluations can be made by individuals, but there’s nothing wrong with their being made institutional and therefore more sophisticated.

However, religion and doctrine are subjective, not objective, so while they can be fine when applied to individuals, any attempt to make such interpretations institutional is wrong. To claim that the opinions and subjective viewpoints that work for you must therefore also work for others is not a supportable position.

Obviously, there is nothing scientific about the latter doctrine. It is an intuitive evaluation of how reality comes across to some of us. What is more, the latter doctrine cannot be proven. What is more, this doctrine is incompatible with the doctrines of other religions. But since different people are bound to have different accounts of the significance of reality, and since such judgments need not aspire to the goals of science, this is not a problem.

But since it cannot be proven, we should not consider it as having any relation at all to reality, only to the individuals holding that viewpoint.

At this point, someone might say that the “evaluations” I’ve described don’t warrant any existential claims such as the existence of karma or deities. But frankly, I am inclined to dismiss as dogma the idea that scientific investigation is the only grounds for making existential claims. If one can make an existential claim for purpose A (i.e. scientific explanations of the phenomenal world), why can’t one make existential claims for purpose B (i.e. religious accounts of reality’s significance and character)? Provided, of course, that the latter existential claims don’t conflict with scientific knowledge.

I find it interesting that you say existential claim B can't conflict with existential claim A, yet I doubt you hold claim A to the same condition regarding B. I suspect that this shows that you put more trust in science than you do faith. And for one very good reason: Science works. And that brings me to my second point. You say you don't see why science should be the only tool used to make existential claims. Yet I am unaware of any other tool we could use. After all, any existential claim must be testable if we are to accept it as true. If verifiability was not required, then we could never know if the claim was true, and the only basis for accepting or discarding a claim would be whether or not we felt like it was a correct claim or a false one. And human judgement in such matters is notoriously unreliable.

So I think that science is the only tool we have that can give us testable and verifiable information about reality.

The fact that religion and science don’t talk about the same thing doesn’t make them incompatible in principle. Art and science don’t talk about the same thing either.

Non-overlapping magisteria. It's irrelevant to compare two things that are talking about completely different subjects. Apples and oranges. Art and science are talking about two completely different things - art is about expressions of thought and emotions and aesthetics, and science is about investigation and the nature of reality. Likewise, electrical theory and magical moon fairies also talk about completely different topics. But when we have religion telling us the world works this way and science telling us that the world works this other way, then they are both talking about the same thing. And unless science and religion are telling us the exact same thing, then one of them MUST be wrong, and therefore they are incompatible with each other.

 

[Trantorfuzz]

[FONT=&quot]

Right, so there is no objective significance to reality. Any significance we find in reality must therefore be the significance we ourselves place on it.

Well, given your argument, I have to agree that significance is ultimately subjective. However, this is not the same as saying that all ways of assigning significance to reality are equally defensible. Abrahamic fundamentalism is not as defensible as Daoism, for example, because the former commits us to absurd empirical claims. The idea that everything is really wonderful and only seems bad because of our cosmic naivete is not as defensible as the idea that misery is a salient characteristic of many people’s lives and that people should be ashamed to cause so much of it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I fail to see why science must be the tool we use to place significance on reality. Science is a tool for learning how reality operates. It is not a significance depositor.

I agree, and have said as much. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

However, religion and doctrine are subjective, not objective, so while they can be fine when applied to individuals, any attempt to make such interpretations institutional is wrong. To claim that the opinions and subjective viewpoints that work for you must therefore also work for others is not a supportable position.

The idea that it is wrong to make religion & doctrines institutional does not follow from the ultimate subjectivity of religion. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
Secondly, while you are correct to say that the universal applicability of subjective judgments does not follow *logically* from my acceptance of those judgments, you ignore the fact that a great many subjective judgments are be shared by a great many people *in fact*, owing to the fact that people are a social and not a solitary species. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For example, there is no objective reason to discourage the wearing of plaid leotards to funerals, but the institution of the fashion industry joins most Americans (and citizens of some other countries) in doing just that, owing to widespread shared subjective opinion. Why is this wrong?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
For example, there is a liberal Christian denomination, the United Church of Christ, which rejects the miracle stories, but maintains a theistic worldview and claims that people choose to behave in a manner contrary to the principles espoused by their loving deity. Why is this wrong? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
And by the way, if it is wrong to institutionalize subjective concepts, then on what basis can you promote shared moral judgments, however secular?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

But since it (an intuitive evaluation of how reality comes across to us) cannot be proven, we should not consider it as having any relation at all to reality, only to the individuals holding that viewpoint.

This argument makes about as much sense as the idea that, since our emotions are subjective, they can’t have any relation at all to reality. All types of subjective emotional and evaluative responses have a strong relationship to reality, since it is reality that conditions them. For example, if we were living in a world without suffering, our typical emotional states, along with our poetry, our ethics, and our religions, would be radically different. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I find it interesting that you say existential claim B (a faith-based existential claim) can't conflict with existential claim A (a scientific claim), yet I doubt you hold claim A to the same condition regarding B.

That’s a good point. Objects of faith don’t have the same epistemic status as empirical findings. An object of faith is like a bet—one trusts that it’s true without proof. Empirical findings are simply proven. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I suspect that this shows that you put more trust in science than you do faith.

I have no trust in science whatsoever when it comes to judgments of significance, value, or morals. I similarly lack trust in religion when it comes to the determination of which consistent theory accounts for more data about the stars, organisms, etc. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

And for one very good reason: Science works.

Within its magisterium, but not outside it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

And that brings me to my second point. You say you don't see why science should be the only tool used to make existential claims. Yet I am unaware of any other tool we could use. After all, any existential claim must be testable if we are to accept it as true. If verifiability was not required, then we could never know if the claim was true, and the only basis for accepting or discarding a claim would be whether or not we felt like it was a correct claim or a false one. And human judgment in such matters is notoriously unreliable. So I think that science is the only tool we have that can give us testable and verifiable information about reality.

Well, this goes to the difference between knowing X and making X an object of faith. If we know that X exists, or if X is at least unobservable but nonetheless theoretically necessary, we make an existential claim. And if we decide to commit to the notion that Y exists on the basis of insufficient evidence, because it helps us make our judgments of significance and value, we are still making an existential claim about Y, even if it is far less certain than our knowledge of X. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Non-overlapping magisteria. It's irrelevant to compare two things that are talking about completely different subjects. Apples and oranges. Art and science are talking about two completely different things - art is about expressions of thought and emotions and aesthetics, and science is about investigation and the nature of reality. Likewise, electrical theory and magical moon fairies also talk about completely different topics. But when we have religion telling us the world works this way and science telling us that the world works this other way, then they are both talking about the same thing. And unless science and religion are telling us the exact same thing, then one of them MUST be wrong, and therefore they are incompatible with each other.

I said as much myself when I maintained that religious doctrines shouldn’t conflict with scientific findings. But inasmuch as religions address issues that the sciences don’t, what we have between religions and sciences are (you guessed it) non-overlapping magisteria. [/FONT]

 

[underthesun]

God is what I feel in the depth of my bones, God is what I see when I look at the world, God is what I hear when people laugh. God is beyond my comprehension and therfore my words.

God cannot be 'proved' - no more than the beauty of poetry, the awesomeness of a roaring ocean or the wonder of a starry sky.​

I wanted to quote these answers, as I found them to be very beautiful and quite similar to what I believed.

I view the divine as you and as I, as the carving of a new river and as the setting of the sun upon the mountains, as the falling of an autumn leaf and as the budding of a spring flower, as the peaceful breeze in the evening and as the roaring flames of a forest fire, as Apollo and as Shiva, as passion and as restfulness, as love and as grief. I view the divine as everything natural, and as so much more than I could ever think to comprehend.

I, too, do not believe that the divine can be proven, especially as the divine is beyond comprehension. I can feel the divine in my life, and many others can feel the divine within theirs, albeit it very different ways, and that is as much 'proof' as I can ever need. ​