Science can say nothing about existence of God

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wouldn't do much good to ask someone a question and then answer it for them now would it?

QED

 

[paarsurrey]

That's because god of yours fall under the realm of myth and superstition; religions fall under the category of wishful thinking and ignorance.
Science deal with reality and nature, not some invisible magic beings, who is supposedly all-powerful and all-knowing.

Science tackles only what works for day to day physical and material life for other aspects of life it becomes gibberish.
Regards

 

[McBell]

Maybe he is just trying to start discussions about things he deems important for people to understand.

I suspect he has the answers already.
Wouldn't do much good to ask someone a question and then answer it for them now would it?

I suspect it is just something he heard and read somewhere and is parroting it without knowing if it is true or not.
I further suspect that he has either looked for something credible and has not been able to find anything to present or he is afraid to look in fear of finding out it is a huge steaming pile of bull ****.

The fact remains that he repeats the claim ad nauseum and never presents anything to support it.

 

[allfoak]

I suspect it is just something he heard and read somewhere and is parroting it without knowing if it is true or not.
I further suspect that he has either looked for something credible and has not been able to find anything to present or he is afraid to look in fear of finding out it is a huge steaming pile of bull ****.

The fact remains that he repeats the claim ad nauseum and never presents anything to support it.

Perhaps

 

[leibowde84]

Are you being purposely obtuse? When it comes to absolute truth, conceptual evidence does not suffice for obvious reasons...the real is not the concept of the mind....non-conceptual reality itself is the only evidence that counts....conceptual representations are the brains neuron firing patterns to help mortals interpret reality for survival purposes...got it?

I would have to redirect your initial question back at you. What value does non-verifiable evidence have objectively? Why does it deserve to be respected as trustworthy? When it comes to understanding the universe we live in, there is no requirement to come up with an answer now. Our scientific understanding is so limited, currently, that it is insane to jump to supernatural conclusions when, one day, we might be able to break through the wall you've described.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I would have to redirect your initial question back at you. What value does non-verifiable evidence have objectively? Why does it deserve to be respected as trustworthy? When it comes to understanding the universe we live in, there is no requirement to come up with an answer now. Our scientific understanding is so limited, currently, that it is insane to jump to supernatural conclusions when, one day, we might be able to break through the wall you've described.

Who said anything about it not being verifiable....you do not understand what is being said to you....what is being explained to you is that conceptual understanding will never ever suffice as evidence...

 

[1AOA1]

"science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry - fact vs. values -"

science can say nothing about [the existence of God]

A claim is indirectly being made here.

 

[leibowde84]

Who said anything about it not being verifiable....you do not understand what is being said to you....what is being explained to you is that conceptual understanding will never ever suffice as evidence...

It doesn't really matter, as there is a plethora of verifiable empirical evidence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It doesn't really matter, as there is a plethora of verifiable empirical evidence.

So where is this plethora of non-theoretical evidence proving the absolute reality on the other side of the concept?

 

[leibowde84]

So where is this plethora of non-theoretical evidence proving the absolute reality on the other side of the concept?

Sorry, I have been really busy at work. Which concept are we talking about in particular?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Don't be sorry...this is the never ending story.....the absolute reality represented by the concept of the absolute reality...

 

[leibowde84]

Don't be sorry...this is the never ending story.....the absolute reality represented by the concept of the absolute reality...

Well, I agree that there are no absolutes. But, we can verify reality by documenting the same reality experienced by control groups. The "matrix" concept, while plausible technically, only acts to inhibit understanding of reality (or at least the only reality we have). That's why there is so much apprehension from scientists toward philosophy ... and they have a valid point.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, I agree that there are no absolutes. But, we can verify reality by documenting the same reality experienced by control groups. The "matrix" concept, while plausible technically, only acts to inhibit understanding of reality (or at least the only reality we have). That's why there is so much apprehension from scientists toward philosophy ... and they have a valid point.

Absolute reality* is not able to be apprehended by space time modelling because space time is a concept that does not exist outside of the human mind...if you disagree, please explain...

* By 'absolute reality' I mean that which is, not an interpretation by a puny human mind whose sentience is limited to an insignificant amount of all the vibrations of the universe..

 

[paarsurrey]

Please read my post #397 in this connection.
Regards

 

[prometheus11]

Absolute reality* is not able to be apprehended by space time modelling because space time is a concept that does not exist outside of the human mind...if you disagree, please explain...

* By 'absolute reality' I mean that which is, not an interpretation by a puny human mind whose sentience is limited to an insignificant amount of all the vibrations of the universe..

I just don't think that's possible. There's got to be some filter. Imagine if you could "see" every wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just imagining one sense, out of quite a few we could discuss beyond the obvious six, and you're talking a VERITABLE FLOOD of information. I mean the overload would be immense for almost any size mind.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I just don't think that's possible. There's got to be some filter. Imagine if you could "see" every wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just imagining one sense, out of quite a few we could discuss beyond the obvious six, and you're talking a VERITABLE FLOOD of information. I mean the overload would be immense for almost any size mind.

When a child is born...it is as you say...the senses are overloaded and some form of natural filtering is used to process the data incrementally until each of the senses and mind processing are up to full bandwidth to survive in the material environment....along the lines of this old saying....a thousand stimulus make a precept.....a thousand precepts make a concept....a thousand concepts make an idea...a thousand ideas make an ideology? ..... you get the idea.. The child deals and processes stimulus until they make sense and synthesized into a packet of information at a higher hierarchical level...these packets are then processed until they make sense and put into a packet at an even higher level, and so on.... We right now are at this stage where we are dealing with the big picture of what and who we are in the context of absolute existence... I say we are naturally endowed with the biological and technological hardware and software to interface with the cosmos until there is a OMG event that will be synonymous with the thousand ideology synthesis...all that we know is understood without thinking about it...non-conceptual understanding...it is only possible to those who hunger for further growth...and is never possible for those who do not believe we are still growing and are happy to just play with the contemporary orthodox shadowy conceptual ideologies for the rest of their life.......

 

[Rick O'Shez]

* By 'absolute reality' I mean that which is, not an interpretation by a puny human mind whose sentience is limited to an insignificant amount of all the vibrations of the universe..

"Absolute reality" is a worthless concept since we will never know everything that is "out there". And don't confuse a search for knowledge with religious belief and fantasy.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

....what is being explained to you is that conceptual understanding will never ever suffice as evidence...

An ironic statement given that you seem stuffed full of concepts yourself. I don't understand why you continually want to reify non-conceptual mind, it's just a different state of mind, there's nothing supernatural about it.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

There's got to be some filter. Imagine if you could "see" every wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just imagining one sense, out of quite a few we could discuss beyond the obvious six, and you're talking a VERITABLE FLOOD of information. I mean the overload would be immense for almost any size mind.

Yes, and we've evolved to sense a limited range of inputs.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An ironic statement given that you seem stuffed full of concepts yourself. I don't understand why you continually want to reify non-conceptual mind, it's just a different state of mind, there's nothing supernatural about it.

You do not understand the English words you are using? The irony is on you because it is you who are reifying the concept of the non-conceptual mind...you are saying the non-conceptual mind, which is an abstract concept, is just another state of mind....nothing supernatural about it.. Now the concept 'abstract' means not representing external reality or objects of nature....which is true wrt the concept of the non-conceptual mind...it is not of this world...it is Divine...and reify means to consider an abstract concept to be a material thing...which it is not for it is God, but which you claim is not supernatural but rather just and another state of mind which is reifying it...