Scientific search for what is God.

[McCulloch]

I agree that the Big-Bang gives us very little insight into what is God, and the creation event is only a physical reality with very little to teach about the spiritual side.

It would be better if modern science would search to discover what is God but the people are so intimidated by the reality of God that science can not even talk about it let alone do the research.

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

What would the search to discover what is God if it were to be carried out by modern science?

[JP Cusick]

Thank you for entirely ignoring my request for specificity.

I do not see this claim as true or fair to me, especially when you reject the first criteria of an open mind.

These comments were not directed at you but still in this thread I gave specifics in several of my comments, as like in my #14, and in my #12, and to a lesser degree my comments #2 and #7, and here I quote another specific from my comment #17:

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

But as general and vague as your answer was, it is completely wrong. Science is only successful by being closed minded. Every new idea has to be rigorously challenged. That is the very essence of science.

That closed mind of science is true for a classroom where the students are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with the Atheist version of science.

But that same closed mind is not useful in scientific research into the unknown, or in any difficult research.

[Divine Insight]

As to you not being a materialist, are you denying that your underlying postilion is not one of Materialism? I ask because you certainly come across as one in many of your posts, and believe me, I do read your posts.

If you think I'm a materialist you haven't been reading my posts very well. Moreover, if there actually exists a "God" then God itself would necessarily need to be made of some sort of material, otherwise it could have no structure and no existence.

So the idea that anything could exist (even a God) that has no material aspect to it is nonsense. If a "God" exists it necessarily must have some sort of "physics" even if that physics goes beyond the physics of our universe.

So even spiritualists are necessarily "materialists" whether they realize it or not, unless they are willing to concede that their "God" has no existence at all.

In relation to Pantheism, I have said quite a bit about this in my members notes, here:

♦ Panentheism/Panpsychism is the best idea of GOD.

Hopefully this will dispel your perception that I am a Yahwehist.

Apart from that, I have nothing more to say regarding your last post.

You had suggested the concept of "Intelligent Design", but that concept is not required in Pantheism. A Pantheistic entity would have no need to design anything. Not only that, but Pantheism would be totally undetectable, and therefore could never be scientifically determined to be the nature of reality. I believe I had already covered that when I stated that pantheism would be very similar to solipsism when it comes to objectively proving it. It simply cannot be done.

Therefore if you support Pantheism you should be aware that science could never determine the existence of a Pantheistic God. And signs of "Intelligent Design" would not apply in any case.

Moreover, the specific point that I originally responded to your post was your suggestion that science should look into investigation the possibility of "Intelligent Design". I made two points on that:

1. Science has already addressed that issue and there is no evidence for any intelligent design.

and

2. If you believe in a Pantheistic type of "God" then looking for signs of intelligent design is misguided in any case.

So it really doesn't even matter what my personal beliefs about what reality might be, the points I'm making are true regardless of what I might personally believe about reality.

And finally, if you've been reading my posts you really should be aware by now that I'm totally agnostic when it comes to the question of whether or not their might be a "God". Especially when it comes to a God that is as ill-defined as a Pantheistic type of God. Obviously I'm not agnostic with respect to man-made mythical Gods like Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Jesus etc. because those God cannot be true based on the rumors that describe them, so I can be certain that they don't exist. No need to even call upon scientific knowledge to dismiss them. They are clearly nothing more than poorly invented superstitious tales.

[William]

[Replying to post 32 by Divine Insight]

If you think I'm a materialist you haven't been reading my posts very well.

That may or may not be the case. Your expressions easily lead the reader into thinking that this is your position.

Moreover, if there actually exists a "God" then God itself would necessarily need to be made of some sort of material, otherwise it could have no structure and no existence.

See? The above clearly makes it easy for the reader to think you are a materialist. The argument you present in the above line make that very clear.

So the idea that anything could exist (even a God) that has no material aspect to it is nonsense. If a "God" exists it necessarily must have some sort of "physics" even if that physics goes beyond the physics of our universe.

And again. The above clearly makes it easy for the reader to think you are a materialist. The argument you present in the above line make that very clear.

So even spiritualists are necessarily "materialists" whether they realize it or not, unless they are willing to concede that their "God" has no existence at all.

And then you cement it. The reader has absolutely no choice but to acknowledge that you are a materialist.

Perhaps a special kind of materialist who believes in divine insight, a kind of life after death where the ego does not go, but 'you' do, and a GOD that is made of something material which is measurable by scientific processes but is strangely absent from this universe, because this universe has no reason for being?

You had suggested the concept of "Intelligent Design", but that concept is not required in Pantheism.

Of course it is. I have shown this to be the case. I see that there is a recent thread underway on the subject. You can take your argument there.


Panentheism
Which of the gods qualify?

[paarsurrey1]

I don't think there is any discipline of science yet set to look into it. It is not likely to be set anytime even in the future:

It is because One-True-God is only attributive ...

I agree that modern science is so corrupted that it is not suitable to doing the job of research.

Science (those who claim science) are so severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities.

Translation: Science effectively falsifies everything I say and so I will, without any evidence, accuse any who support the scientific view of being, "severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities."

And I like that point that God can only be seen through His attributes, because God is like the science of a "Black-Hole", in that no one can see a black hole but they can see its effects and that is the proof. So too - no one sees God but we can see His effects.

Translation: I believe in an invisible god who is too dense to be seen yet who exhibits none of the other attributes of such a hugely dense object.

Science without religion is lame.

Translation: I am a quote miner and am happy to quote Einstein out of context whilst, at the same time, I advance the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

Isn't it just one's magical thinking, please?
If it is supported by science then one should have:

~quoted from a textbook of science that "God does not exist".
~or quoted from a peer-reviewed article published in some that "God does not exist".
~and named the specific discipline of science set for exploration in scientific terms that "God does not exist".

If one couldn't do that earlier, one is welcome to do it now, please.

Regards

[Peter]

I don't think there is any discipline of science yet set to look into it. It is not likely to be set anytime even in the future:

It is because One-True-God is only attributive ...

I agree that modern science is so corrupted that it is not suitable to doing the job of research.

Science (those who claim science) are so severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities.

Translation: Science effectively falsifies everything I say and so I will, without any evidence, accuse any who support the scientific view of being, "severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities."

And I like that point that God can only be seen through His attributes, because God is like the science of a "Black-Hole", in that no one can see a black hole but they can see its effects and that is the proof. So too - no one sees God but we can see His effects.

Translation: I believe in an invisible god who is too dense to be seen yet who exhibits none of the other attributes of such a hugely dense object.

Science without religion is lame.

Translation: I am a quote miner and am happy to quote Einstein out of context whilst, at the same time, I advance the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

Isn't it just one's magical thinking, please?
If it is supported by science then one should have:

~quoted from a textbook of science that "God does not exist".
~or quoted from a peer-reviewed article published in some that "God does not exist".
~and named the specific discipline of science set for exploration in scientific terms that "God does not exist".

If one couldn't do that earlier, one is welcome to do it now, please.

Regards

No thinking person can claim absolutely that "gods don't exist" only that the current crop of man invented gods don't exist.

[H.sapiens]

I don't think there is any discipline of science yet set to look into it. It is not likely to be set anytime even in the future:

It is because One-True-God is only attributive ...

I agree that modern science is so corrupted that it is not suitable to doing the job of research.

Science (those who claim science) are so severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities.

Translation: Science effectively falsifies everything I say and so I will, without any evidence, accuse any who support the scientific view of being, "severely prejudiced against religion and so bigoted against God that they are blind-stupid to the truth and the realities."

And I like that point that God can only be seen through His attributes, because God is like the science of a "Black-Hole", in that no one can see a black hole but they can see its effects and that is the proof. So too - no one sees God but we can see His effects.

Translation: I believe in an invisible god who is too dense to be seen yet who exhibits none of the other attributes of such a hugely dense object.

Science without religion is lame.

Translation: I am a quote miner and am happy to quote Einstein out of context whilst, at the same time, I advance the logical fallacy of an argument from authority.

Isn't it just one's magical thinking, please?
If it is supported by science then one should have:

~quoted from a textbook of science that "God does not exist".
~or quoted from a peer-reviewed article published in some that "God does not exist".
~and named the specific discipline of science set for exploration in scientific terms that "God does not exist".

If one couldn't do that earlier, one is welcome to do it now, please.

Regards

Sarcasm is hard to comprehend when you are in a second language, best to leave it be now, please.

[Divine Insight]

So even spiritualists are necessarily "materialists" whether they realize it or not, unless they are willing to concede that their "God" has no existence at all.

And then you cement it. The reader has absolutely no choice but to acknowledge that you are a materialist.

Perhaps a special kind of materialist who believes in divine insight, a kind of life after death where the ego does not go, but 'you' do, and a GOD that is made of something material which is measurable by scientific processes but is strangely absent from this universe, because this universe has no reason for being?

You are stretching the common usage of the term "materialist". If a God exists at all it necessarily needs to have some form or structure. That alone would quality as having a "material" existence.

In fact, the idea of a "God" that has no material existence is nothing short of absurd.

You had suggested the concept of "Intelligent Design", but that concept is not required in Pantheism.

Of course it is. I have shown this to be the case. I see that there is a recent thread underway on the subject. You can take your argument there.

You have apparently fallen into the trap that many people fall into. You are attempting to imagine a pantheistic God that has an ego. That's actually the wrong idea of pantheism.

Panentheism
Which of the gods qualify?

That thread actually proves my point because in that thread people are attempting to argue that the Biblical God could be a Pantheistic God, which is absurd. That idea is simply not compatible with the behavior attributed to the Biblical God by the Biblical stories themselves.

All you need to realize is that if there is a pantheistic God it would be unprovable. Period. And it couldn't be anything at all like Zeus, Thor, Yahwah, or Jesus, etc.

You may as well be speculating about solipsism. It too is unprovable.

So even if you believe there exists a pantheistic God, there wouldn't be much sense in attempting to make an argument for it. It would be as futile as trying to make an argument for solipsism.

Keep in mind that this thread is about the "Scientific search for what is God".

If God is pantheistic, then science could never be used to prove or disprove the existence of such a God. This is why pantheistic religions, (such as Buddhism) cannot be scientifically shown to be false. All we can say about those types of religions is that there is no evidence to support them (not unlike solipsism).

But the Biblical God is "out cold" with no science even require. The Biblical stories prove beyond any rational doubt that the God described in the Bible cannot exist as it is described. So there's no need to even bring science to bear on that paradigm. It's clearly already false.

And any "Designer God" arguments are also clearly false.

So if you want to believe in a non-materialistic pantheistic God that cannot be shown to exist, more power to you. You can't bring science to bear on such an ill-defined concept. All you can say is that you enjoy believing in it. But that's hardly a scientific statement.

[McCulloch]

Thank you for entirely ignoring my request for specificity.

I do not see this claim as true or fair to me, especially when you reject the first criteria of an open mind.

I ask for specifics about how you might improve science and you point to superficial similarities between Genesis and science, the supposed existence of ghosts, spirits and demons and the ravings of Herbert W Armstrong. Then you make the unsupported vague suggestion that science should be open minded. That scientists should waste their resources chasing down every pseudoscientific rabbit hole; homeopathy, prophesy, telepathy, intelligent design, faith healing ….

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

You have completely lost me here. How does the theory of parallel universes show anything about God? Why would you accept that someone very much like you in a parallel universe is identical to being you?

But as general and vague as your answer was, it is completely wrong. Science is only successful by being closed minded. Every new idea has to be rigorously challenged. That is the very essence of science.

That closed mind of science is true for a classroom where the students are being indoctrinated and brainwashed with the Atheist version of science.

There is no atheist version of science. There is no atheist version of mathematics, biology, geology or physics.

[JP Cusick]

No thinking person can claim absolutely that "gods don't exist" only that the current crop of man invented gods don't exist.

The above sentence is not written very well, but it makes a valid point for science.

The - man invented Gods - do not exist.

So we need to look for whatever is the real Creator, search for the real version of God.




--------------------------------------------------------

The science of the "parallel universe" tells us so much more about our Creator, because if we each do exist in different parallel universes (and I accept that as true) then that does explain how God does gives truth and justices to every person whoever lived.

You have completely lost me here. How does the theory of parallel universes show anything about God? Why would you accept that someone very much like you in a parallel universe is identical to being you?

We do not know all of the particulars yet, but some aspects are easier to comprehend.

As like the theory of Parallel Universes includes that we go through other universes without easily noticing the switch, and so every parallel universe is directly connected to each other and so we can be inside of hundreds of parallel universes at the same time until each time one separates from another and we can identify those events in our own life, and the most easy to identify is where a death or severe event happens because those times are where the parallels divide.

In example: A car crash, so in one universe we die and another we survive and another we have severe injuries and another of the same crash some other person dies or the other has the severe injuries, and so every part of that parallel universe would all be connected and divided at the car crash and those we can identify. Anytime death is involved then a parallel universe divides, as like an abortion in this evil universe has that same baby being born alive in a parallel universe and thus the same person is always the one who lives and so every person lives to the very end in their own last parallel.

I say that only a God of extreme love and justice could have created such a phenomenon.

[Neatras]

Oh my gosh, this is some Mandela Effect nonsense.

Okay, everyone. We've figured it out, JP Cusick is just reciting his favorite pseudoscience again. There is absolutely nothing of note here. He likes the idea that we "switch between universes." And I can't help but feel scientific illiteracy is to blame here.