Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Robert.Evans]

The void is awesome but can also be very scary, I suspect that's why many people prefer the comforting familiarity of "God" and other such beliefs.

You keep coming out with this "comforting" thing about God don't you; it couldn't just be you that's wrong I suppose could it? Or if it doesn't make sense in your mind, then the largest part of the planet must be wrong, correct?

 

[leibowde84]

What is fact is what comes after, I told you that.

Sorry, I don't know what this mean.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sorry, I don't know what this mean.

No one knows the Source (before) but we can get understanding of God (after). Therefore one is explainable (to a degree, for we know him in part) and one is unexplainable (Source). There is however, not two, but one.

 

[Ouroboros]

If it is inexplicable, it should not be claimed as fact.

I'm a little lost here. Where was it claimed that something inexplicable was a fact? I missed that post, but I agree with you. If it can't be explained, then it's not a fact. However, people can have experiences that can't be explained. They have a hard time finding the right words to explain what they felt. Now, that doesn't it mean that whatever or however they interpret their experience is the fact, but it's a fact that they did experience something (whatever it was). Also, take quantum mechanics or dark matter or dark energy. There are many things they can see in nature (like the effects of what they call dark matter) for which
we don't have good explanations or even complete theories or formulas or equations etc, but still, it's a fact that there's something that adds energy to the universe, and there's added gravity in the galaxies, and we don't know why or how. There are several candidates for these WIMPs, and yet, we know there's something for a fact, but we don't know what it is. We can only describe the effects. And the effects are a fact. But it's inexplicable still what is causing them.

It is "daft" to assume something is the case with any kind of certainty, when you can't even understand it enough to explain it to others. Until some kind of explanation can be given, it is best to keep it to ones self.

Some things can only be explained with words that don't really fit. Quantum chromodynamics wasn't chosen because of pretty colors in the quantum world, but because it was convenient way of separating the different properties.

The problem most of the time is rather that each system of thought has its own language. And to understand the system of thought, you have to learn the language that's spoken. Mathematics is one language for science, but not for all of them. Philosophy has its own "language", what specific word means and are used and such. The same for religion. But it also goes for subdivisions in these fields. Ethics has its own set of words. And so does Christianity or mysticism. And I believe that most disagreements comes from misunderstanding each others use of the words. A lot of time I think people agree to the same ideas, just not the same use of words. If Robert.Evans there could describe his views using Christian symbols, concepts, and words, then perhaps you would understand better, but perhaps he can't use them in such a way that's needed? Anyway, that's some of my thoughts on this.

 

[leibowde84]

You keep coming out with this "comforting" thing about God don't you; it couldn't just be you that's wrong I suppose could it? Or if it doesn't make sense in your mind, then the largest part of the planet must be wrong, correct?

The majority of people on this planet have been wrong about many things throughout history. So, why would you think that would be so unthinkable?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The void is awesome but can also be very scary, I suspect that's why many people prefer the comforting familiarity of "God" and other such beliefs.

What proof do have of the void that you would call it scary....it's all in your head yes?

 

[LuisDantas]

Science requires the exploration of falsifiable claims. The existence of God is not a falsifiable claim. Therefore science can say nothing about it.

That is basically correct.

And I suppose some people might perceive that as a reason for science to feel humble about God, or perhaps even as evidence that God is indeed a transcendent concept or even a transcendent entity.

That would in my opinion be a very serious mistake.

In order to understand why we should remind ourselves of what science is and why it wants falsifiable claims to study: because that is ultimately the only way of attaining reliable, correctable knowledge.

Unfalsifiable claims end up being a matter of belief and faith. "God", if anything, is an extreme case. The very idea has no meaning whatsoever except to the extent that our beliefs lend it any.

Therefore, the only thing that is even worth pursuing that relates to God is an understanding of why the concept exists and is perceived as significant. It is a matter for the psychological and social sciences to study. It is mythology, and should be treated as such.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That is basically correct.

And I suppose some people might perceive that as a reason for science to feel humble about God, or perhaps even as evidence that God is indeed a transcendent concept or even a transcendent entity.

That would in my opinion be a very serious mistake.

In order to understand why we should remind ourselves of what science is and why it wants falsifiable claims to study: to the exrent because that is ultimately the only way of attaining reliable, correctable knowledge.

Unfalsifiable claims end up being a matter of belief and faith. "God", if anything, is an extreme case. The very idea has no meaning whatsoever except to the extent that our beliefs lend it any.

Therefore, the only thing that is even worth pursuing that relates to God is an understanding of why the concept exists and is perceived as significant. It is a matter for the psychological and social sciences to study. It is mythology, and should be treated as such.

So as a practicing Buddhist....would you also say that the concept of Nirvana has no meaning whatsoever, except to the extent beliefs lend it any?

 

[LuisDantas]

So as a practicing Buddhist....would you also say that the concept of Nirvana has no meaning whatsoever, except to the extent beliefs lend it any?

Sure.

The Dhamma is a means to an end. So are any and all of the concepts it uses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sure.

The Dhamma is a means to an end. So are any and all of the concepts it uses.

And the end is?

 

[LuisDantas]

And the end is?

In a word, Eudaimonia.

The Buddhadhamma (as I understand it, anyway) has as its goal the learning, practice and teaching of skillful means for dealing with our psychological and social realities in order to promote the most sustainable, healthy, joyful existences we can.

While there is no shortage of people claiming supernatural colors to it, I don't think those are necessary or even a good fit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You keep coming out with this "comforting" thing about God don't you;

Because in my experience theists do usually prioritise comfort over truth. There is a strong need to believe, and that belief distorts perception and leads to a denial of reality. Maybe you are an exception.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Such as heaven, hell, salvation, angels, and all that? Or the ideas of absolute and/or objective morality.

Beliefs generally. Like for example somebody who believes in "God" might have a meditative experience and then assume it must be something to do with "God", which of course is confirmation bias.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What proof do have of the void that you would call it scary....it's all in your head yes?

The point is about how you deal with this kind of existential fear. Do you have the courage to face it and investigate it, or do you forever play safe, sidestepping it by clinging to comforting beliefs, clutching at metaphysical straws like "God"? Are you forever a child clinging to daddy's hand, or can you let go? Can you bring yourself to look over the precipice or are you forever afraid to approach the edge?

 

[McBell]

Don't be silly. There are lots of things we can't show on this planet, yet you wish to see something greater. You can't even except simple writings in a book. How would you accept the deeper things of God.

I call bull ****.
You made a claim.
A bold empty claim.
And instead of supporting your bold empty claim, you claimed your bold empty claim is inexplicable as though that bold empty claims excuses your lack of evidence for the first bold empty claim.

And you claim I am silly?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There are no other words to explain the experiences, so God is the only thing that is close enough.

I think there are other words. "God" has an awful lot of baggage attached to it, and there comes a point where using the word is just misleading.

 

[Ouroboros]

Beliefs generally. Like for example somebody who believes in "God" might have a meditative experience and then assume it must be something to do with "God", which of course is confirmation bias.

It's their interpretation, but it doesn't mean their experience wasn't real to them. God is just a term that is used in lieu of anything better to explain that experience.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think there are other words.

Then give an example.

"God" has an awful lot of baggage attached to it, and there comes a point where using the word is just misleading.

It has a lot of baggage, agree. And so does many other words. So what words would you use instead?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It has a lot of baggage, agree. And so does many other words. So what words would you use instead?

Words which are descriptive of the experience itself - like a sense of calm, peace, spaciousness, oneness, whatever it is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It's their interpretation, but it doesn't mean their experience wasn't real to them.

I'm not suggesting that people don't have experiences, I'm suggesting that they often interpret those experiences according to pre-conceptions rather than looking at them with an open mind.