Science can say nothing about existence of God

[Rainbow Mage]

Then you must agree that God should not be considered by science, right?

I don't think god can be considered by science, but my point is, I think that says more about god as a claim, than some inability of science to verify certain claims. That is my view.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't think god can be considered by science, but my point is, I think that says more about god as a claim, than some inability of science to verify certain claims. That is my view.

Ok...so what does it say about God as a claim...in my case as God just being a concept to represent all reality...the cosmos?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Ok...so what does it say about God as a claim...in my case as God just being a concept to represent all reality...the cosmos?

In that case, one could wonder, why call reality or the cosmos god? Its why I'm not a Pantheist.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't think god can be considered by science, but my point is, I think that says more about god as a claim, than some inability of science to verify certain claims. That is my view.

I agree. Until God is a falsifiable claim, aka God is defined in a limited way, God cannot be considered in this way.

 

[leibowde84]

Ok...so what does it say about God as a claim...in my case as God just being a concept to represent all reality...the cosmos?

If God is merely the cosmos, why diffetentiate? Why not use the word cosmos?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In that case, one could wonder, why call reality or the cosmos god? Its why I'm not a Pantheist.

So what do you call God?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If God is merely the cosmos, why diffetentiate? Why not use the word cosmos?

Because God's infinite nature means a greater part is transcendent to that which can be apprehended by human sensory perception....greater than that usually understood as the reality represented by the concept 'cosmos'...

 

[leibowde84]

Because God's infinite nature means a greater part is transcendent to that which can be apprehended by human sensory perception....greater than that usually understood as the reality represented by the concept 'cosmos'...

But, there are a plethora of scientifically measurable parts of the cosmos that are not perceivable by human sensory. So, can you explain what you mean specifically?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But, there are a plethora of scientifically measurable parts of the cosmos that are not perceivable by human sensory. So, can you explain what you mean specifically?

But even with the technological extension of human sensory perception, it is still only looking into the 2.5% of the cosmos as science now understands it...that leaves 97.5% undetectable... And that does not mean there is no more to it than that presently understood to be the 100%...

 

[leibowde84]

But even with the technological extension of human sensory perception, it is still only looking into the 2.5% of the cosmos as science now understands it...that leaves 97.5% undetectable... And that does not mean there is no more to it than that presently understood to be the 100%...

But whose to say that science won't some day figure out how to measure these things. We didn't know that xray, ultra violet rays, etc. Existed before we figured out how to artificially see them. So it seems ludicrous to assume we won't some day be able to measure what you are describing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

But whose to say that science won't some day figure out how to measure these things. We didn't know that xray, ultra violet rays, etc. Existed before we figured out how to artificially see them. So it seems ludicrous to assume we won't some day be able to measure what you are describing.

But xray, ultraviolet, cosmic, etc..are only looking at the 2.5%...and that which it detects has to be processed and put in a format in order to be sensible to our limited evolved senses and mental processing design.. And of that 2.5% that is detectable, man has only accessed an insignificant fraction.. Now I am optimistic that there will be a lot of discovery in the future, but that optimism includes that evolution never ceases and that on this journey, as we discover new things.. our mind and body adapts and evolves to a new level which is then just another prerequisite step to realize yet more progress...evolution is, I do not think, linear... Destiny calls to all, but not all hear the call....

 

[Matthew Jordan]

If nothing can be greater than the sum of its parts. Then nothing can be greater than the unified sum of all things. This is a working scientific definition of "God" I believe

 

[Rainbow Mage]

So what do you call God?

Nothing. I have no masters except my own self

 

[Rick O'Shez]

But whose to say that science won't some day figure out how to measure these things. We didn't know that xray, ultra violet rays, etc. Existed before we figured out how to artificially see them. So it seems ludicrous to assume we won't some day be able to measure what you are describing.

It certainly is, and science is a process of progressive discovery. This is basically a God-of-the-gaps argument, filling the unknown with a belief in God.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nothing. I have no masters except my own self

Well good luck with that belief for as long as it lasts...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It certainly is, and science is a process of progressive discovery. This is basically a God-of-the-gaps argument, filling the unknown with a belief in God.

Haha...I don't call 99.99% a gap....and besides...listen to yourself...you are an atheist based on the godless dogma of your belief system.....of course God is an unknown to you...but do not for a minute imagine that God is unknown to those who devote their lives to God...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Haha...I don't call 99.99% a gap....and besides...listen to yourself...you are an atheist based on the godless dogma of your belief system.....of course God is an unknown to you...but do not for a minute imagine that God is unknown to those who devote their lives to God...

You are welcome to your imaginary friend.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are welcome to your imaginary friend.

As an atheist...it is impossible for you yet to realize non-duality....you must be prepared to give up the very idea of your existence being essentially separate from what you presently see as not your existence...

 

[Rick O'Shez]

As an atheist...it is impossible for you yet to realize non-duality....you must be prepared to give up the very idea of your existence being essentially separate from what you presently see as not your existence...

Absolute nonsense, you don't have to be a theist to experience non-duality or samadhi, it is not about belief. See this thread for example: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...a-non-conceptual-brahman.185293/#post-4662583

You propose a sort of woolly syncretism, the problem is that you are overly attached to your theistic beliefs and cannot help but see everything through that narrow and distorting lens. I see you as being stuck in a spiritual cul-de-sac.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Absolute nonsense, you don't have to be a theist to experience non-duality or samadhi, it is not about belief. See this thread for example: http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...a-non-conceptual-brahman.185293/#post-4662583

You propose a sort of woolly syncretism, the problem is that you are overly attached to your theistic beliefs and cannot help but see everything through that narrow and distorting lens. I see you as being stuck in a spiritual cul-de-sac.

So why do you claim non-duality to be a woolly syncretism. And if you have experienced it, why do you speak about it as imaginary. No one can say anything meaningful about non-duality...expressions like Samadhi are only concepts that are meant to represent a reality that is on the other side....