Maybe God doesn't want to be found via the scientific method

[-Peacemaker-]

Here is secular America's "Bible".
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

One thing about this "Bible" is that it makes us feel very safe. We only have to believe in what we can taste, touch, smell, etc. The problem is our ears can only detect soundwaves within 20 Hz to 15 000 Hz. Our eyes can only detect wavelength of 380–750 nanometers. Even scenthounds can detect smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human. Would it be so hard for the big guy to remain undetected from senses such as these?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Here is secular America's "Bible".
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results

One thing about this "Bible" is that it makes us feel very safe. We only have to believe in what we can taste, touch, smell, etc. The problem is our ears can only detect soundwaves within 20 Hz to 15 000 Hz. Our eyes can only detect wavelength of 380–750 nanometers. Even scenthounds can detect smell one- to ten-million times more acutely than a human. Would it be so hard for the big guy to remain undetected from senses such as these?

The pertinent question is: why?

 

[Orbital]

There are other instruments we can use to detect other frequencies of sound waves or other lengths of light waves, so those parameters are not quite accurate.

The possibility of a god hiding in the limits of what we can detect is not relevant to proving and showing evidence for the existence of it.

This old 'moving the gods into the unknown' is a common definition of a god, and not useful at all.

 

[Madhuri]

God could only be found through science if God is a material being. God concept in my religion sees the divine as a Spiritual being (not made of matter).
He isn't hiding. He is everywhere.

 

[Orbital]

God could only be found through science if God is a material being...He is everywhere.

Apparently not everywhere since he is not material.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

There are other instruments we can use to detect other frequencies of sound waves or other lengths of light waves, so those parameters are not quite accurate.

The possibility of a god hiding in the limits of what we can detect is not relevant to proving and showing evidence for the existence of it.

This old 'moving the gods into the unknown' is a common definition of a god, and not useful at all.

But my point is still valid: it's about LIMITS. Do you really believe our limits are contained to the eyeball or the ear drum?

 

[Madhuri]

Apparently not everywhere since he is not material.

Matter is just one of his potencies. Even matter is Brahman, but Brahman is not the form of God. So those looking for a form will not see it.

 

[Orbital]

But my point is still valid: it's about LIMITS. Do you really believe our limits are contained to the eyeball or the ear drum?

We have a other senses but yes our limits are contained in the 'eyeball or the ear drum'.

Your point might be valid, but my point is that is it completely useless and irrelevant to say, since you could apply those measures of possibilities to any entity you still want to exist.

Matter is just one of his potencies. Even matter is Brahman, but Brahman is not the form of God. So those looking for a form will not see it.

So matter is a part of god, which would mean that at least a part of him is material. Am I correct in stating this?

 

[blackout]

How would you know if you found 'him'?

 

[Madhuri]

So matter is a part of god, which would mean that at least a part of him is material. Am I correct in stating this?

Yes, everything you see and experience is part of that potency of God.

 

[YmirGF]

How would you know if you found 'him'?

She'll be wearing really cool sunglasses.

 

[blackout]

She'll be wearing really cool sunglasses.

Nice.

 

[Orbital]

Yes, everything you see and experience is part of that potency of God.

If you make the statement that God is in the material around us, then he can be measured through scientific means, otherwise your assertion that god is in the material around us remains just what it is, an assertion.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

There are other instruments we can use to detect other frequencies of sound waves or other lengths of light waves, so those parameters are not quite accurate.

The possibility of a god hiding in the limits of what we can detect is not relevant to proving and showing evidence for the existence of it.

This old 'moving the gods into the unknown' is a common definition of a god, and not useful at all.

It is because I think what you really mean is prove via the scientific method. Why does God have to be limited to proving himself in such a way that it'll register on some barometer we've constructed?

 

[blackout]

It is because I think what you really mean is prove via the scientific method. Why does God have to be limited to proving himself in such a way that it'll register on some barometer we've constructed?

the godometer?



Now why hasn't anyone thought of that.

 

[Madhuri]

If you make the statement that God is in the material around us, then he can be measured through scientific means, otherwise your assertion that god is in the material around us remains just what it is, an assertion.

The material universe can be measured by scientific methods.
Scientists do not recognise the universe as a part of God.
So when I say that God cannot be found through science, I am referring to the personal form of God, which is Spiritual.
When I say that God is everywhere, I am referring to Brahman.

Because I often neglect to make a complex reply, I end up making statements that are confusing or seem contradictory and end up in a lengthy conversation. Sorry about the confusion.

The difference between my understanding of God and that of the OP is that God is not a distinct creature hiding somewhere in the universe. He is all things: the Creator and the Created.

 

[Orbital]

It is because I think what you really mean is prove via the scientific method. Why does God have to be limited to proving himself in such a way that it'll register on some barometer we've constructed?

Because that is the only way to effectively and prove something in reality. If you make an assertion that a god exists in the world we live you will have to prove it through the scientific method. If you define god to be outside our perceptions, there is no way for you to provide evidence for the existence of this entity. Therefore simply defining something outside of what we can find out is not proving its existence. Not only that, but if it is outside our perceptions there is no way we can know of it and therefore it is simply equal to non-existence.

 

[Orbital]

The material universe can be measured by scientific methods.
Scientists do not recognise the universe as a part of God.
So when I say that God cannot be found through science, I am referring to the personal form of God, which is Spiritual.
When I say that God is everywhere, I am referring to Brahman.

Because I often neglect to make a complex reply, I end up making statements that are confusing or seem contradictory and end up in a lengthy conversation. Sorry about the confusion.

The difference between my understanding of God and that of the OP is that God is not a distinct creature hiding somewhere in the universe. He is all things: the Creator and the Created.

And my point is that if you are asserting that god or Brahman is our material universe then that is something we can test. You can put forward that through the studies you have found that 'particle A' gets effected by 'Force Brahman' in this phenomenon, and then we test that and see if what you are asserting is true. If you make the statement that Brahman is our universe so everything we see is Brahman, then that is you just playing a silly semantic game by defining everything we perceive to be as part of your god, so it seems like your conceptual idea of god is not entirely disconnected from reality.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Because that is the only way to effectively and prove something in reality. If you make an assertion that a god exists in the world we live you will have to prove it through the scientific method. If you define god to be outside our perceptions, there is no way for you to provide evidence for the existence of this entity. Therefore simply defining something outside of what we can find out is not proving its existence. Not only that, but if it is outside our perceptions there is no way we can know of it and therefore it is simply equal to non-existence.

Are we really qualified to say this?

 

[Orbital]

Are we really qualified to say this?

Yes.

The scientific method is the best way to decipher reality. It is derived from reasoning by answering the question how can we know what is in reality and how can we explain it.

If you can come up with a method that is better than a scientific method me and probably the rest of the world would be happy to hear it.