Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Ouroboros]

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

To some people those words don't convey the whole message, so they prefer stronger words. Besides, the confusion of the words can't only be blamed on those who say them, but also in those who listen to them and judge them based on their preconceived notions without investigating further what they speaker actually meant with them. The word "God" has gone through many revisions and changes over the past thousands of years, just like the theory of evolution is in its 3rd or 4th version now, so who's to say the word "God" hasn't gone through or is going through a revision again in modern time?

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Or maybe they don't mean "God" in the same sense as you do? Have you tried to understand what they mean, or do you just assume they mean the same thing as you?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The word "God" has gone through many revisions and changes over the past thousands of years, just like the theory of evolution is in its 3rd or 4th version now, so who's to say the word "God" hasn't gone through or is going through a revision again in modern time?

"God" has so many meanings these days that it's become almost meaningless. I guess people need to say what exactly they mean by it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Or maybe they don't mean "God" in the same sense as you do? Have you tried to understand what they mean, or do you just assume they mean the same thing as you?

As I said people use "God" in so many different ways that it's become another bit of ill-defined short-hand or jargon. People probably need to explain what the word means to them personally.
It's isn't just "God" though, there is a more general tendency towards magical thinking, an assumption of some supernatural dimension which is often unexamined.

 

[Ouroboros]

"God" has so many meanings these days that it's become almost meaningless. I guess people need to say what exactly they mean by it.

That's why it's more important to ask them to describe what they mean and not just get stuck on their use of that word. There's no real gain done by assuming they mean the same as you, so therefor, disregard their use of the word, don't even consider it important for the discussion, and then move on and talk about the things that actually do describe what they experienced.

 

[Ouroboros]

As I said people use "God" in so many different ways that it's become another bit of ill-defined short-hand or jargon. People probably need to explain what the word means to them personally.

Exactly right. It's more important to listen to the other things being said. The word "God" can be used in so may ways so it's not your or my right to question if someone is using it or not. It's their choice, and they mean something personal to them, and what it is can only be understood from the rest of the conversation.

Put it this way, in a discussion the word "God" is nothing but a pebble in the street you're walking. Don't let it be so huge stumbling block for you that you keep on tripping on it and can't get further.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

That's why it's more important to ask them to describe what they mean and not just get stuck on their use of that word. There's no real gain done by assuming they mean the same as you, so therefor, disregard their use of the word, don't even consider it important for the discussion, and then move on and talk about the things that actually do describe what they experienced.

But then we are back to people describing their experiences directly.

 

[Ouroboros]

But then we are back to people describing their experiences directly.

Sure. But it's a bigger stumbling block for you than for them that they're using a word you disagree with them about. Imagine if I got stuck with your use of the word "directly"? What do you mean by using the word "directly"? There are other words that better describe it, so why don't you use the other words instead? Now our discussion will be stuck on the use of a single word instead of the meaning and content behind the discussion. Perhaps the word "God" only extremely important to theists and atheists? The rest of the people use it casually and not put too much attention to it. It only describes the thing you can't describe to them, but for theists and atheists, it has to have an exact definition. To theists, it's defined as what absolutely must exist. To atheists, it's defined as something that absolutely can't exist. But in the end, there's no exact definition of what "God" is. It's really an expression of the things beyond our grasp of understanding. It's word used for that purpose.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But in the end, there's no exact definition of what "God" is.

I think that's a very good reason for not using the word unless one has a very clear idea of what it means. Ill-defined jargon like this just causes confusion. Or maybe sometimes people are just too lazy to come up with better words?

In any case I don't see why I should have to ask people what they mean every time they use it, they should explain it, particularly if they are using the word in a non-traditional way.

Basically "God" is a bit of jargon and when people introduce jargon it's their responsibility to define it clearly. They shouldn't expect other people to guess.

 

[leibowde84]

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.

Man ... you should advertise for Buddhism. I'm convinced.

 

[Ouroboros]

I think that's a very good reason for not using the word unless one has a very clear idea of what it means. Ill-defined jargon like this just causes confusion. Or maybe sometimes people are just too lazy to come up with better words?

True. That's why I avoid it unless I believe or hope the people I'm talking to have similar views.

In any case I don't see why I should have to ask people what they mean every time they use it, they should explain it, particularly if they are using the word in a non-traditional way.

You should, if you're interested in know what they mean. You can't say you're interested in their views and then be dismissive of every word they use that you don't agree with. The problem for you is how the word reflects on your own experiences and understanding, so to understand someone else, you have to dig in to what they mean. (And I can tell you that I'm extremely bad at this. Having a hard time following my own advice. )

Basically "God" is a bit of jargon and when people introduce jargon it's their responsibility to define it clearly. They shouldn't expect other people to guess.

True. But if they do defined what they mean, then don't immediately dismiss their definition. If I remember right, this discussion between you and me here started with some disagreement that you have with another member of their definition of God, right? So in other words, they have to use the word God defined as you see fit, not as they see fit, because they have to cater to your needs to be understood. Don't you ever consider that you might have to meet them halfway and accept some of their definitions even if you don't agree with how those words are defined? After all, if they describe an experience that can't be described in simple words, they would have to reach for many words and many descriptions to get there, and you would have to be forced to accept that they don't mean every word exactly the way you think of them.

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

I find the "psychological and social realities" to be an interesting phrase. Does this mean that those things are real? And the same for health, joy, and such, does joy exist? If it's just an illusion of a chemical reaction in our brain, does it really exist?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

I've got news for you....but it will have to wait until you have evolved a little further...the reality meant to be represented by the concept of Nirvana is beyond conceptual understanding and you are not ready yet...adios

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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?

Talk, talk, talk.....there has never been an atheist in all eternity who has gone over the precipice to realize immortality as a transcendent being....you are only on the conceptual side of the precipice....the non-conceptual is the other side...if you excuse the irony of my using conceptual language to explain that fear you refer to only exists because you are unrealized on the material dualistic side...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Talk, talk, talk.....there has never been an atheist in all eternity who has gone over the precipice to realize immortality as a transcendent being....you are only on the conceptual side of the precipice....the non-conceptual is the other side...if you excuse the irony of my using conceptual language to explain that fear you refer to only exists because you are unrealized on the material dualistic side...

"Immortality as a transcendent being?" Really? OK, lets see you back up this claim with some evidence.

You can't of course, because it's just another belief that you cling to. And your clinging to such beliefs is why you will never experience the void.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I've got news for you....but it will have to wait until you have evolved a little further...the reality meant to be represented by the concept of Nirvana is beyond conceptual understanding and you are not ready yet...adios

I don't think you have any idea of the reality. You've been preaching for so long that you've started to believe your own sermons.

I don't think you have any idea what Nirvana is either. Nirvana includes the realisation of sunyata ( emptiness ), which is entirely incompatible with most of the stuff you believe in. So if do you want to realise it you will need to have a thorough clear-out of your superstitious beliefs.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find the "psychological and social realities" to be an interesting phrase. Does this mean that those things are real? And the same for health, joy, and such, does joy exist? If it's just an illusion of a chemical reaction in our brain, does it really exist?

Of course they are real. Why would they fail to be?

 

[LuisDantas]

I've got news for you....but it will have to wait until you have evolved a little further...the reality meant to be represented by the concept of Nirvana is beyond conceptual understanding and you are not ready yet...adios

Think what you will, but don't expect me to care.

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course they are real. Why would they fail to be?

I'm glad that you think so, and I agree that they are.

Take a word like joy. Do we know if it means the same to all people? Can we suspect that some people might have different views on what makes them happy and joyful? If so, the word is confusing and not coherent (not meaning the same thing to everyone), but still we do use it because we can infer that there's more behind the word when someone uses it. We don't immediately assume that when someone says they're happy that it necessarily means exactly the same as my own feeling of happy. We can assume it is something very similar, but we do know deep down that there can be differences. No word of emotions or experience is exact. They are words that are assigned to emotions that we can't measure. There's no metric system to measure or weigh how much "joy" is really the true "joy" or such. The word "God" also describes things that are personal to people and can't be exactly defined or measured. There are many definitions. And there's no scientific method to analyze this "God" thing.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm glad that you think so, and I agree that they are.

No argument there.

Take a word like joy. Do we know if it means the same to all people? Can we suspect that some people might have different views on what makes them happy and joyful? If so, the word is confusing and not coherent (not meaning the same thing to everyone), but still we do use it because we can infer that there's more behind the word when someone uses it. We don't immediately assume that when someone says they're happy that it necessarily means exactly the same as my own feeling of happy. We can assume it is something very similar, but we do know deep down that there can be differences. No word of emotions or experience is exact. They are words that are assigned to emotions that we can't measure. There's no metric system to measure or weigh how much "joy" is really the true "joy" or such. The word "God" also describes things that are personal to people and can't be exactly defined or measured. There are many definitions. And there's no scientific method to analyze this "God" thing.

Emotions are at least in large part determined by biological factors, though. In that sense they are considerably more measurable and objective than "God".

Not that it is all that difficult to get at least a sense of what is meant by "God", either. There is a cluster of most frequent meanings.that, while probably not all-encompassing, is at the very least quite useful to keep in mind. There can be little doubt at this point in history that for many people "God" is a personification of a mystery of the creation of existence and/or a mystical source of virtue itself, for instance. In other circunstances it can be a crutch of sorts, an attempt at earning debate privileges, etc.

It is of course conceivable that there are outlier cases which are not all that well understood or described by those typical situations, but I don't think that is particularly noteworthy. Knowledge and understanding can and will have boundaries without that truly implying transcendence.