What religion is scientifically proven?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if pantheism counts as a religion, but if laws of physics are "proof" enough for you, then I would say pantheism has some potential scientific backing. But it is really open to the individual to decide; concrete proof is near impossible when it comes to religion.

Why do you consider the laws of physics to be support for pantheism?

As far as scientific proof of God... I guess by that you mean verifiable evidence? Well to begin with God is beyond our limited sense perception and we will not be able to prove his existence using our limited faculties. Bit like a tiny microbe trying to comprehend the workings of a computer or even a lightbulb... simply not equipped.

Only if he sees our sincerity in trying to reach him or contact him might he reveal himself. The word commonly used is revelation. So How do you qualify for that revelation.

The answer is simple. Become religious, enter into a life of prayer and give up trying to be happy without him.

If we are not prepared to do that then we are not serious or sincere about contacting him. So why should he reveal himself.

It takes much more than a laboratory experiment. It's not so cheap.

Why should I sincerely approach your god and not any of the other, mutually exclusive gods available to me? You've dismissed the possibility that I could consider the evidence, so what other reason do I have?

 

[The Wizard]

Hello guys.

I wonder which religion is scientifically proven, i mean are the stuff written in hindu scriptures or the things that are in bible or in any other scripture of any religion scientifically proven. i guess what i am trying to say is, would you be rather believing in something that is scientifically proven or would you rather be believing in myths and majic. ..

I don't get it. How do you scientifically prove a religion unless you examine the effects and results of using the religion. Religions and God are not about applying science and knowledge to a certain extent. It's about applying faith and belief to affect life due to lack of knowledge and control in some area or sitution of life, which needs nothing but personal experiences and wisdom about the effects/affects of belief itself. Belief and knowledge are two seperate human traits that are supposed to compliment each other in balance. They are not supposed to be in competition or at war with each other whatsoever. Why would someone war with theirself? LOL

Whether one believes in myths, magic or science, all of it is still going to influence and affect their life. So, believing in a myth doesn't make the affects of the activity a myth. P.S. I'm not sure belief is involved in science as with your question... IMO.

 

[Martin John]

Why do you consider the laws of physics to be support for pantheism?


Why should I sincerely approach your god and not any of the other, mutually exclusive gods available to me? You've dismissed the possibility that I could consider the evidence, so what other reason do I have?

That's the point... We don't have to. If we are not willing to 'approach' God through a practice of religion , then even the fact that this whole cosmic manifestation in all of its glory points to a creator will not convince us.

 

[Autodidact]

As far as scientific proof of God... I guess by that you mean verifiable evidence? Well to begin with God is beyond our limited sense perception and we will not be able to prove his existence using our limited faculties. Bit like a tiny microbe trying to comprehend the workings of a computer or even a lightbulb... simply not equipped.

Only if he sees our sincerity in trying to reach him or contact him might he reveal himself. The word commonly used is revelation. So How do you qualify for that revelation.

How do you know, if our tiny faculties cannot detect Him. If we can't detect Him, how do you know He exists? Aren't you just assuming that He does? Or is your sense perception less limited than the rest of us?

The answer is simple. Become religious, enter into a life of prayer and give up trying to be happy without him.

Why would I want to? Especially if we can't know whether He exists?

If we are not prepared to do that then we are not serious or sincere about contacting him. So why should he reveal himself.

Up to Him I guess. I notice though that his actions always coincide with not existing.

It takes much more than a laboratory experiment. It's not so cheap.

so in order to find out whether God exists, we have to assume He does? See any logical problem with that? Anything?

 

[Autodidact]

That's the point... We don't have to. If we are not willing to 'approach' God through a practice of religion , then even the fact that this whole cosmic manifestation in all of its glory points to a creator will not convince us.

How do you decide which God to do that with?

 

[Martin John]

How do you know, if our tiny faculties cannot detect Him. If we can't detect Him, how do you know He exists? Aren't you just assuming that He does? Or is your sense perception less limited than the rest of us?

We may not be able to approach him with our limited senses, but he can reveal himself to us.It is known as revelation and for that we have to make ourselves qualified. Even to have audience with the President you need qualification or credentials. What to speak of God.

Why would I want to? Especially if we can't know whether He exists?

As I said you 'can' know if he exists, but not by any material means.

Up to Him I guess. I notice though that his actions always coincide with not existing.

Interesting statement. Kind of shows that the atheist mind set is completely different from the theist. For the theist his every breath of life is proof of Gods existence.

so in order to find out whether God exists, we have to assume He does? See any logical problem with that? Anything?

Not an altogether bad assumption, an assumption that countless millions of people on the planet share and have done for thousands of years and will do for thousands of years in the future

Anyway a nice discussion- but I am sure we will never agree. Such is life

 

[Martin John]

So in order to get some kind of evidence to prove your gods existence so nonbelievers can believe the nonbelievers need to brainwash themselves into believing in him first? Sure, that makes perfect sense. In bizzaro world.

You got it... brainwashing. Our brains are so full of junk that a good wash will do wonders

 

[PolyHedral]

Indeed. Only problem is that most people don't like the worldview you get when you build upwards from logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's the point... We don't have to. If we are not willing to 'approach' God through a practice of religion , then even the fact that this whole cosmic manifestation in all of its glory points to a creator will not convince us.

It's not that I'm not willing; it's that approaching your God means turning my back on some other God, and vice versa. There's no single "God" for me to approach.

In what was does "this whole cosmic manifestation in all of its glory" point to a creator?

 

[Autodidact]

Not an altogether bad assumption, an assumption that countless millions of people on the planet share and have done for thousands of years and will do for thousands of years in the future

Anyway a nice discussion- but I am sure we will never agree. Such is life

Are you trying to argue that because millions of people share a given assumption, it is more likely to be correct?

 

[Autodidact]

You got it... brainwashing. Our brains are so full of junk that a good wash will do wonders

Wow, I hope you're joking. Otherwise that's pretty scary.

 

[Martin John]

Yes something like Plato's cave example. If you are not familiar with this you will find it easy with a search on google

 

[Martin John]

It's not that I'm not willing; it's that approaching your God means turning my back on some other God, and vice versa. There's no single "God" for me to approach.

In what was does "this whole cosmic manifestation in all of its glory" point to a creator?

So seems now we going into a discussion on comparative religion.

From this I might presume that you have got the point that God cannot be understand or approached by our limited sense perception.

So your question is the obvious next step.

First thing to consider is that: Their may be different systems of religious practice where God is addressed in different ways using different names. This simply indicates the diverse cultural and psychological make up of the people on our planet. All the major religions then are worshiping the 'one God'

Out of ignorance and influenced by materialistic values people will fight trying to prove there approach is the only approach.

 

[PolyHedral]

All the major religions then are worshiping the 'one God'

This is impossible; they are saying mutually contradictory things about God(s).

 

[Martin John]

Are you trying to argue that because millions of people share a given assumption, it is more likely to be correct?

Not exactly. Vox populi cannot always prove a argument. My point here is that by logical inference we see that every thing in our house including our house, every piece of clothing we have, every pavement we step on, every car, plane, train we get on... is created by someone.

So on this basis 'I personally' do not think it is a bad assumption to consider that their might be a creator behind this whole cosmic manifestation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So seems now we going into a discussion on comparative religion.

Of course. There is no single, generic god-claim. The only claims we have before us to evaluate are the specific claims for specific deities.

From this I might presume that you have got the point that God cannot be understand or approached by our limited sense perception.

So your question is the obvious next step.

Actually, my normal next step is to conclude that anyone who's talking about things that can't be understood or approached is just making stuff up. How can you say anything about something that can't be understood at all? How could you even defend the claim that an incomprehensible thing even exists?

First thing to consider is that: Their may be different systems of religious practice where God is addressed in different ways using different names. This simply indicates the diverse cultural and psychological make up of the people on our planet. All the major religions then are worshiping the 'one God'

... except for all the ones that worship multiple gods.

And from where I sit, there's not much practical difference between the idea that different religions have mutually exclusive gods and the idea that all religions worship the same god, but with mutually exclusive ideas about that god and how to worship him.

Out of ignorance and influenced by materialistic values people will fight trying to prove there approach is the only approach.

Interesting that you should say this in support of your argument that your approach is the correct one.

 

[Ubjon]

Not exactly. Vox populi cannot always prove a argument. My point here is that by logical inference we see that every thing in our house including our house, every piece of clothing we have, every pavement we step on, every car, plane, train we get on... is created by someone.

So on this basis 'I personally' do not think it is a bad assumption to consider that their might be a creator behind this whole cosmic manifestation.

All around us are things which have arisen through natural processes without any guiding hand including yourself. If you believe that God designed man then God must have be a terrible designer because we're full of flaws.

 

[Martin John]

This is impossible; they are saying mutually contradictory things about God(s).

Whatever they may be saying makes no difference to Gods position. A basic definition of God is that he is 'one'

Even Hinduism with its many demi-gods recognizes one supreme being (Visnu) from which they come.

Allah means great and Jehovah means our father.

 

[Martin John]

All around us are things which have arisen through natural processes without any guiding hand including yourself. If you believe that God designed man then God must have be a terrible designer because we're full of flaws.

No matter how much so-called materially advanced we are, no matter how much we endeavor to be the Lords of all we survey, no matter how much knowledge we have, in due coarse of time we have to submit to the Laws of nature-namely disease, old age and death. Someone who is introspective will want to know if their is something beyond this? is their more to life than shopping or playing golf?

In this way the material world in made to be perfectly imperfect pushing us to search out a higher reality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whatever they may be saying makes no difference to Gods position. A basic definition of God is that he is 'one'

By "basic" do you mean "unusably vague"?

What does "God is 'one'" even mean?