• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Scientific evidence / arguments for God

Status
Not open for further replies.

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Is science the only alternative? I am not a scientist. My life is fulfilled by many things, and I think the universe is beautiful enough by itself that I don't need stories about a god to make it any more fulfilled.
It's good to see you don't use science to validate all your life experiences. Then why do you demand it offer evidence of God? What do you expect to see other than the universe itself, other that people's expressions of what they experience as God? Isn't that God?

But to add something to this, for me God is not about 'stories'. It's not about believing a literal understanding of myth as facts about natural history. It is about the experience of Being itself, it's about the sort of ineffable responses to existence, it's about what is inside me that draws me into the sunset and it into myself, it's about finding the fullest possible expression of that within myself. All the rest, the 'stories' are simply color swatches on a linguistic canvas to turns one attention from the distracting affairs of day to day life to see that sunset in the sky, and project our very heart, mind, and spirit into that vast universe that is our home we are within, and it within us. That's God. You want evidence of God? Just open yourself to it through transcending all these created frameworks of language we call reality.

Can science take you there? Only if you allow it to inspire what is inside you. Then it is no longer science - but faith.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Can science take you there? Only if you allow it to inspire what is inside you. Then it is no longer science - but faith.
It's like something I was talking about in another forum, watching one of those pictures of a galaxy taken by Chandra or other observatory, and feel amazed, marveling about the beauty, and how big such galaxy is and how far away it is, and how little we know still of how things work both in the smallest scale up to the largest. It all comes together as awe and inspiration. Being here, right now, seeing it, and just draw a breath of life.
 

Introvert

Member
It's good to see you don't use science to validate all your life experiences. Then why do you demand it offer evidence of God? What do you expect to see other than the universe itself, other that people's expressions of what they experience as God? Isn't that God?

But to add something to this, for me God is not about 'stories'. It's not about believing a literal understanding of myth as facts about natural history. It is about the experience of Being itself, it's about the sort of ineffable responses to existence, it's about what is inside me that draws me into the sunset and it into myself, it's about finding the fullest possible expression of that within myself. All the rest, the 'stories' are simply color swatches on a linguistic canvas to turns one attention from the distracting affairs of day to day life to see that sunset in the sky, and project our very heart, mind, and spirit into that vast universe that is our home we are within, and it within us. That's God. You want evidence of God? Just open yourself to it through transcending all these created frameworks of language we call reality.

Can science take you there? Only if you allow it to inspire what is inside you. Then it is no longer science - but faith.

First of all, I never demanded evidence of god. I don't believe in him.

Secondly, it seems like you are just changing the definition of god to suit something else. This is something pantheists also do. I think it's unnecessarily confusing to do so. That isn't god, you just changed what god means to fit it. Why not call it "glorp"?
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's like something I was talking about in another forum, watching one of those pictures of a galaxy taken by Chandra or other observatory, and feel amazed, marveling about the beauty, and how big such galaxy is and how far away it is, and how little we know still of how things work both in the smallest scale up to the largest. It all comes together as awe and inspiration. Being here, right now, seeing it, and just draw a breath of life.
I was just thinking about this some more and it occurred to me that in this way science plays much the role that mythology does in being a "story" that draws forth that sense of the ineffable, that inspires "faith" in us, something that reaches from the earth to the heavens. It's not just about looking at what's out there, it's about opening up what's "in here" in us. It other words, we are looking into the abode of the gods in ourselves through the natural world.

It makes me think of what Einstein said:

"The most beautiful and most profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness."

It's not about proving our ancestors mythologies are about actual creatures in time and space, like angels and whatnot, but that what is in the heart expressed in such things does exist. What that points to, is beyond any understanding, and rightly could be called "God".
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
First of all, I never demanded evidence of god. I don't believe in him.

Secondly, it seems like you are just changing the definition of god to suit something else. This is something pantheists also do. I think it's unnecessarily confusing to do so. That isn't god, you just changed what god means to fit it. Why not call it "glorp"?
Are you sure it's not the theists who have changed the definition? And why do you assume that understanding is the only valid way to talk about what transcends all definitions? That's the thing I have an issue with many who claim atheism. It's really nothing more than "not the Christian deity". It's still thinking about God the same way, just not believing it as opposed to believing it.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I forgot to add to the last post that what I do is to look underneath the covers at what is being expressed in all its mythological trappings from one religion to the next. It's all the same thing, and not what you look at on the surface with all its multiple eyes and seven horns and whatnot.

The mystic Meister Eckhart put it well, “Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” You're asking for evidence for theological quarrel, not God.
 
Last edited:

Introvert

Member
Are you sure it's not the theists who have changed the definition?

..That's the thing I have an issue with many who claim atheism. It's really nothing more than "not the Christian deity". It's still thinking about God the same way, just not believing it as opposed to believing it.

Yes, I'm sure.

I don't believe in ANY god.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Amen to all that.

Considering that many, probably most scientists go into their area of science because they're intrigued and interested in it, not just because they have to or are forced to. Just look at the passion Brian Cox displays in his science series. You might think he's having a religious/mystic experience when he stands next to a vulcano and compares it to the activity on Venus. :D
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Are you sure it's not the theists who have changed the definition? And why do you assume that understanding is the only valid way to talk about what transcends all definitions? That's the thing I have an issue with many who claim atheism. It's really nothing more than "not the Christian deity". It's still thinking about God the same way, just not believing it as opposed to believing it.
Agree.

There are many other definitions of God in history. Monotheism is not the owner of the definition. I was accused once that I committed the fallacy of equivocation, which is bull.
 

Introvert

Member
Lets face it, all throughout history, "god" has been defined as a conscious being, usually considered omnipotent and often considered the creator of everything. If you have to change the definition to make it fit with something else, you don't really believe in god.

It's the equivalent of me saying "I believe in unicorns, only my definition of a unicorn is just a regular horse". Lets face it, I don't believe in unicorns, and you don't really believe in god.
 

idav

Being
Premium Member
Lets face it, all throughout history, "god" has been defined as a conscious being, usually considered omnipotent and often considered the creator of everything. If you have to change the definition to make it fit with something else, you don't really believe in god.

It's the equivalent of me saying "I believe in unicorns, only my definition of a unicorn is just a regular horse". Lets face it, I don't believe in unicorns, and you don't really believe in god.

So best definition for theism is a definition that an atheist feels comfortable with not believing. How quaint.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Lets face it, all throughout history, "god" has been defined as a conscious being, usually considered omnipotent and often considered the creator of everything. If you have to change the definition to make it fit with something else, you don't really believe in god.
Let's face it, the definition of "god" has changed and have had different definitions through history, just not under the specific English spelling "G", "o", "d". The monotheistic view of "God" as one conscious being is specific to the monotheistic view of "God", hence the explanation to why there is a term "mono" theism, as separate from deism, pantheism, panentheism. If they all meant the same thing, there's no distinction or separation between them.

It's the equivalent of me saying "I believe in unicorns, only my definition of a unicorn is just a regular horse". Lets face it, I don't believe in unicorns, and you don't really believe in god.
Not quite the same.
 

Introvert

Member
Let's face it, the definition of "god" has changed and have had different definitions through history, just not under the specific English spelling "G", "o", "d". The monotheistic view of "God" as one conscious being is specific to the monotheistic view of "God", hence the explanation to why there is a term "mono" theism, as separate from deism, pantheism, panentheism. If they all meant the same thing, there's no distinction or separation between them.

Those are all differing beliefs about the same subject; a god, a conscious being (except for pantheism which I pointed out earlier as an example of people changing the definition of god to mean something else, just like the earlier post did). God has almost always meant a conscious being. If "god" to you means the feeling that draws you to a sunset, why call it god? That's just confusing and inaccurate.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
"We do not know what God is. God Himself does not know what He is because He is not anything. Literally God is not, because He transcends being."
John Scot Erigna, 9th century. You're 1100 years too late.
 

Introvert

Member
If he transcends being and we can not know anything about him, this entire thread, this entire website, and every religion or theistic belief is pointless. Asking for evidence is pointless. Also, saying "we do not know what god is" and then saying "god is not/god transcends being" is a contradiction. When we can just change the meanings of words to whatever we want, a debate on the subject becomes pointless.

"I believe in unicorns, my definition of a unicorn is the feeling I get when I hear a beautiful song. Therefore unicorns exist". - this is what you are doing.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Lets face it, all throughout history, "god" has been defined as a conscious being, usually considered omnipotent and often considered the creator of everything.
Thank you for confirming what I said about many atheists whose only understanding of God is that defined by the Judeo-Christian beliefs, working off that understanding only in their sweeping proclamations about God. Ironically, you then proceed to tell me that what I say for myself in my views essentially is that I am not a "True Believer". It's quite like those Christians who say other Christians are not "True Christians", because they don't understand God the same way they do. In fact, I'd say it's exactly like that.

You then further extend this to all religions throughout the millennia, such as those who hold to pantheism, that they are not really believing in God. Like another poster just said, "How quaint".

If you have to change the definition to make it fit with something else, you don't really believe in god.
That's right. I'm not a "True Believer". Well, fair turnabout, you're not a "True Atheist" since you have no idea about any other views about God than the Christian mythic-literal one. Only someone who actually understands all views of God in the world religions throughout all history and cultures can rightly then claim "True Disbelief". Anything short of that is just a wannabe. Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

It's the equivalent of me saying "I believe in unicorns, only my definition of a unicorn is just a regular horse". Lets face it, I don't believe in unicorns, and you don't really believe in god.
God is hardly a horse with horn on its head. It's also hardly a bearded guy in the sky who throws frogs down on Egyptians. It is beyond being a mere mythological object. But you wouldn't know that since you've never looked past the Christian understanding.

Let's put it this way. An infant, a toddler, a five year old, a 12 year old, a young adult, a mid-life adult, an elderly adult, all look at the same world. But the understanding of world to an adult is vastly different than the understanding of a five year old. God to some, the God you define and understand and subsequently reject is the way a child might see the world, that the clouds are "people" looking down on him. That an adult looking at and experiencing the same world as the child doesn't speak of it in mythological terms, doesn't mean the world isn't the same world. It's the same with the way people speak about God. To some it's a sky-person, to others it's the energy of all life, the Source and Summit of our very existence, our very Nature, our very Being. It is the same thing, just understood in 'larger' ways, to put it that way.

See what I said about looking underneath the symbols to see the same thing that everyone sees, no matter what language they wrap it in. You are judging only on the surface meaning of words, not what they point to. Religion, images of God, are like fingers pointing to the moon. They are not the moon themselves, but "True Believers" and their counter parts "True Atheists" argue about the fingers. "The index finger is the True Finger!" "No you're delusional, the index finger is just a finger!" Neither look beyond the finger itself.

“Theologians may quarrel, but the mystics of the world speak the same language.” ~ Meister Eckhart
 
Last edited:

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If he transcends being and we can not know anything about him, this entire thread, this entire website, and every religion or theistic belief is pointless.
It's really more a matter of not defining God, but rather how to speak of the experience of God. We can say plenty about that, we can try to describe that, but ultimately they will always be fingers pointing at the moon, not the moon itself. Is there no value in a finger pointing at the moon? Is there no value in expressing the joy of life in a work of art, because that art is not the joy itself?

Asking for evidence is pointless.
No it isn't. You just need to not define the argument in such as way you're guaranteed to fail. "Using a particle accelerator, explain the meaning of Hamlet to the class!" Fail!

You want evidence? Look within.

Also, saying "we do not know what god is" and then saying "god is not/god transcends being" is a contradiction.
Actually no it isn't. Negation is a tool of discovery in many traditions, such as Buddhism. Christians, the mystical camps that is, use what is called Apophatic or negative theology. You may wish to read the whole article to gain a truer understanding of this in the various traditions.

When we can just change the meanings of words to whatever we want, a debate on the subject becomes pointless.
Oh good golly, words are not static things. There is 'dictionary definitions' but those hardly begin to go into the depth of the meaning of words! There is a whole raft of philosophical depth to words and their implied meanings that a dictionary definition if like a five year old prattling on about surface meanings. I could go on at length about this.

These are not meanings that have changed. They are there if we look in to their usage, what they are pointing to and have been for ages.

"I believe in unicorns, my definition of a unicorn is the feeling I get when I hear a beautiful song. Therefore unicorns exist". - this is what you are doing.
A unicorn is a concrete noun. God is a verb.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
I like what Windwalker says in this debate.

God/Allah/Brahman/Nirvana/etc. are all beyond our ability to conceptually grasp. Mystics know it’s there but can’t express it to us satisfactorily in words. I personally believe we and everything are all One consciousness and that science is evolving to that position. The old simple mechanistic view of the universe and consciousness is clearly incomplete and outdated.

The typical atheist does not understand what he doesn’t believe in. He hears things, like from the old testament, that try to describe God as a great father-being figure with attributes and emotions we humans can grasp. And when they decry this view of God they think they’re arguing for atheism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top