• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science can say nothing about existence of God

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
psychoslice said:
Of course I have no evidenced and I always say that no matter what I share, just like everyone else has no true evidence. What I share is from my own inner being, my own experience in consciousness. The mind body organism is just that, an organism, its not who we truly are, that being the Source, or Consciousness, when the organism dies, what continues, nothing, the mind body was always within Consciousness, not the other way around. Just like waves that appear on the ocean, mind bodies also appear in Consciousness, as also everything else. So beyond the mind body is pure Consciousness, or Source, and as I said, there is no mind that needs to know anything.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I am just far more interested in understanding why you believe this. I already understand what you believe.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
ben d said:
Not so...the minds and bodies of all living creation are still operational.....as it always will be...the carnal mind does not operate completely as a stand alone unit...it interfaces with the collective...
Click to expand...
They are only operational as long as they are here, when death comes, they are not here, everything in Consciousness, arises and disappears, don't try to cling to who you think you are.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
psychoslice said:
They are only operational as long as they are here, when death comes, they are not here, everything in Consciousness, arises and disappears, don't try to cling to who you think you are.
Click to expand...
That's understood.....but the evidence is that the other side is still operational when this mind body ceases...
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
So, no verifiable evidence? Just subjective experiences that we have to take your (or other people's) word for?
Click to expand...
It is not about convincing another.....it is all about the learning to leave the body with continuity of awareness...not conceptual consciousness, but no conceptual awareness... it too late to learn once you die....
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
Can you flesh this out? Sounds interesting, but I don't quite understand.
Click to expand...
That's it, I don't either, as I said what arises arises, I have no choice in what arises, so really only you can find what I say is true to you or not, and see how it resonates with you, and whatever does resonates with you, can only really be your own experience, you like me can point others to that which we resonates with, but that is all.
 
psychoslice

psychoslice

Veteran Member
ben d said:
It is not about convincing another.....it is all about the learning to leave the body with continuity of awareness...not conceptual consciousness, but no conceptual awareness... it too late to learn once you die....
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter when you die, because you wont be there wanting to know.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
ben d said:
That's understood.....but the evidence is that the other side is still operational when this mind body ceases...
Click to expand...
What evidence? You haven't cited anything that can be qualified as "evidence" (see below), which explicitly depends on verifiable "fact" (see below).

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Fact
fakt/
noun
  1. a thing that is indisputably the case.
Both definitions taken from Google search for both terms.
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
What evidence? You haven't cited anything that can be qualified as "evidence" (see below), which explicitly depends on verifiable "fact" (see below).

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun
  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Fact
fakt/
noun
  1. a thing that is indisputably the case.
Both definitions taken from Google search for both terms.
Click to expand...
I explained it...the other side is not conceptual...you want a conceptual explanation of the non-conceptual...see the problem?
 
LegionOnomaMoi

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims.
Click to expand...
This isn't even a coherent position (this has been demonstrated formally in philosophy of logic and pragmatically in the sciences as well as evidenced by its failure to adequately serve as a basis for demarcation).
The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim.
Click to expand...
One of the issues with Popper's attempt to demarcate the sciences and more specifically determine what "hypotheses" were or weren't scientific was that in the philosophy of logic hypotheses, claims, etc., are dealt with formally (mathematically). The sciences are empirical. Any proposition of the form "God exists" is EASILY falsifiable formally. However, it is not always clear which scientific theories are falsifiable empirically (see e.g., M-theory and various other incarnations of string theory as well as other models beyond SM). In fact, it isn't even always clear how many empirically supported theories correspond to reality, from the measurement problems in social sciences to the fundamental disconnect between formalisms and physics in quantum mechanics and extensions thereof (QFT, QED, etc.).

Therefore science can say nothing about it.
Click to expand...
The sciences are fundamentally empirical. That's what divides the formal frameworks of inquiry that Aristotle and others developed which failed miserably as sciences from the modern scientific endeavor: The use of a systematic, logical framework applied to empirical observations to infer and/or construct explanations. Logically, the sciences have shown the increasing irrelevancy of God and have demonstrated classical arguments for God to be inaccurate, inadequate, or insufficient. The mere fact that so many theists appeal to the big bang theory as evidence for God's existence tells us clearly that the sciences can absolutely say something about the existence of God. Basically, the fact that God's existence (or lack thereof) isn't a scientific question doesn't mean that scientific inquiry cannot inform us as to this particular question.
 
Noa

Noa

Active Member
So, are half of the active members of this forum some form of casual logical positivists?

Because it really seems like it. And that is incredibly depressing if it is true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top