Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
We'll need to get a specimen under the microscope first.just go for it
well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".
And getting a meaningful working definition of god is even worseIt is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".
Yes very difficult, as no two religions quite agree.And getting a meaningful working definition of god is even worse
All i need is common sense.
God is the cause of what we call life, but yes, science is slowly acknowledging the Upanishadic Truths (axioms)
just go for it
Science works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo
Natural world as in data rich environment,
as opposed to a data -free one.
Science cannot be used to say anything about God, as God is not a term with any scientific meaning.
It is hard enough to come with an unambiguous scientific definition of "life".
science only explains....HOW.....God did itScience works in the natural world, not the world of supernatural or woo
science only explains....HOW.....God did it
I think science is limited to acknowledging that God is not necessary for life, otherwise science strays into the field of theology.
well if you can't define life.....how then to define the Source?
Yes very difficult, as no two religions quite agree.
But whatever religion one chooses, no definition of God results in objectively observable consequences in the physical world. That makes God a non-scientific idea.
As in reality as opposed to make believe