Does science believe in God ?

[ppp]

So why reply to my posts if you see my questions as not serious?

On milk jugs there is a little ring of plastic that seals the lid. We pull that off and toss it on the floor. One of the cats loves to play with them.

 

[Valjean]

You trying to turn it around? Someone can not give proof of God does not exist? So then he fire back at a different post a month ago? If you can not prove God is not there why not just say you can not prove it?

About my belief in Gods, Buddhas and so on. That is from years of study different spiritual teachings, personal experiences. No it can not scientifically be repeated so none believers can see it. But that is not needed for someone who understand spiritual teachings to be true. Just like you believe science is true.

Spiritual practice is a belief until personal experience starts to happen.
Science does not exist outside of the physical realm, because it can not be "proven" by science.

But what about all the new discoveries? Are they none existing until science "discover them?are there nothing out there until science suddenly having tools to measure?
Or could it be everything is there all the time, waiting to be discovered?

It's not on us to prove God exists. The burden of proof is on you. We claim nothing. We have nothing to prove.
Prove God exists.

 

[Valjean]

Their ongoing unsuccessful story.

Huh?

Nobody tells until get success.

Huh?

RF created a section "Science and Religion".
Why?

Because they're interesting subjects?

Seriously, I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Valjean]

You are unable to explain, that's why this discussion is futile.

Explain what? I have nothing to explain.
You're the one making the claim.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It's not on us to prove God exists. The burden of proof is on you. We claim nothing. We have nothing to prove.
Prove God exists.

The problem is that science is blind for what they can not see, hear or touch. But spiritual people do see, hear and touch God every day in their practice. And some even open their third eye/wisdom eye to understand God do not need to "show up in person" to be recognized as true

Personally I see sign of Gods every day, but those signs are at a personal spiritual level. Those signs are meant for me to understand, not to be shown to someone who would dismiss them as false And why would a God show up in front of a none believer? Probably you would not see it was God who stood in front of you

 

[chinu]

The scientists investigating the "root cause," ie: the mechanism of "creation" are not looking for a creator. They do not expect to find a creator. A creator never enters their minds.
They are investigating physics; the mechanics of creation, not any agent.

Said the rapist; I just want to know what is sex, but, pleasure never entered my mind.

 

[Valjean]

Do personal experience count as evidence to one self? Or is it the proof to others that counts? That I must be able to prove to you that my personal belief is true?
So far the "proof" is on science who has not yet come up with any good answer to that God can not exist because we can not see, hear, or touch him that is not proof God does not exist.

Your reasons are your own. Your experiences are your own. Believe what you will, but if you make a claim, be prepared to defend it with reason and empirical evidence.

Me, I believe in Advaita Vedanta, largely because of a personal experience. I don't expect anyone else to believe in AV. If anyone told me he believed in AV I'd demand evidence. If they couldn't provide it I'd consider him an idiot for believing in something so crazy.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Your reasons are your own. Your experiences are your own. Believe what you will, but if you make a claim, be prepared to defend it.

Me, I believe in Advaita Vedanta, largely because of a personal experience. I don't expect anyone else to believe in AV. If anyone told me he believed in AV I'd demand evidence. If they couldn't provide it I'd consider him an idiot.

So we are not so far from each other then, both believe in personal experience thank you for the discussion

 

[Valjean]

The problem is that science is blind for what they can not see, hear or touch. But spiritual people do see, hear and touch God every day in their practice. And some even open their third eye/wisdom eye to understand God do not need to "show up in person" to be recognized as true

Personally I see sign of Gods every day, but those signs are at a personal spiritual level. Those signs are meant for me to understand, not to be shown to someone who would dismiss them as false And why would a God show up in front of a none believer? Probably you would not see it was God who stood in front of you

Exactly! Science can't investigate feelings. It can't investigate what can't be observed and measured. Don't ask it to do what's not in its purview.

You see Gods. Fine. But that's not something science would explore or would have any interest in.

 

[ChristineM]

• Finding God.
• Finding the cause of creation.

My question to science is.. what’s the difference between ?

If there’s NO difference.
Than my question is.. does science believe in God ?

Science works with evidence.

There is no evidence for a god.

There is evidence that creation occured

There is no evidence that creation required a god

There are hypothesis on how creation occured based on extrapolation from observed phenomena and mathematics

There is no hypothesis that one of those possible causes was a god.

No evidence, not even a hypothesis.

Why should science believe in what cannot be observed or measured

 

[Valjean]

The problem is that science is blind for what they can not see, hear or touch. But spiritual people do see, hear and touch God every day in their practice. And some even open their third eye/wisdom eye to understand God do not need to "show up in person" to be recognized as true

Personally I see sign of Gods every day, but those signs are at a personal spiritual level. Those signs are meant for me to understand, not to be shown to someone who would dismiss them as false And why would a God show up in front of a none believer? Probably you would not see it was God who stood in front of you

Why would God not show up in front of a non believer? Maybe because believers already believe in God, are open to attributing experiences to him, much like schizophrenics are open to hearing voices.

 

[Valjean]

Said the rapist; I just want to know what is sex, but, pleasure never entered my mind.

??????????????????

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why would God not show up in front of a non believer? Maybe because believers already believe in God, are open to attributing experiences to him, much like schizophrenics are open to hearing voices.

Did you just call religious people schizophrenic?

 

[Valjean]

Did you just call religious people schizophrenic?

No, it was a comparison.
I do think many of them would fall within the definition of "deluded," though.
Don't you?

 

[Spirit of Light]

No, it was an analogy.
I do think many of them would fall within the definition of "deluded," though.
Don't you?

No I do not think so. I find spiritual people to be very sane people.

 

[viole]

• Finding God.
• Finding the cause of creation.

My question to science is.. what’s the difference between ?

If there’s NO difference.
Than my question is.. does science believe in God ?

The word "creation" is question begging. And science seems to indicate that causation is not applicable in general. So, your dichotomy is a false dichotomy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

No I do not think so. I find spiritual people to be very same people.

Sane but deluded.

 

[chinu]

Because they're interesting subjects?

Yes, very very interesting

 

[chinu]

The word "creation" is question begging. And science seems to indicate that causation is not applicable in general.

Knowing all this in advance, why still science try to find the cause of creation ?

 

[chinu]

Science works with evidence.

There is no evidence for a god.

There is evidence that creation occured

There is no evidence that creation required a god

There are hypothesis on how creation occured based on extrapolation from observed phenomena and mathematics

There is no hypothesis that one of those possible causes was a god.

No evidence, not even a hypothesis.

Why should science believe in what cannot be observed or measured

Question is NOT how science works.

Question is.. How science explain the difference between finding God vs finding the cause of creation ?