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?

[marco]

" God is best left alone, proofless and invisible"

That's perfect, Marco.

Unless, of course, you decide to call God consciousness. Or a transcendent aspect-sharing first source of all consciousness. Then display the obvious existence of at least one consciousness. At which point God only remains invisible, yet proven.

We can take anything as our starting premise or as an axiom and build our theological geometry on it. We have then "proved" what we want, assuming our premise is true. Which it isn't, of course!

[JP Cusick]

That's the entire point, Dr.

I contend God is the first bag of Tropical Fruit Starbursts, of which we are all bite sized pieces making up a larger, transcendent, invisible bag. Starbursts exists, so I'm well on my way to having proven God as I see fit at defining it.

It's really no more complicated than that.

Sorry ... I didn't catch that you were being facetious. I do like the idea of being a Tropical Fruit Starburst though ... that could be a lot of fun if you landed in the right bag.

He was not being facetious - he was using a metaphor - FYI.

[H.sapiens]

That's the entire point, Dr.

I contend God is the first bag of Tropical Fruit Starbursts, of which we are all bite sized pieces making up a larger, transcendent, invisible bag. Starbursts exists, so I'm well on my way to having proven God as I see fit at defining it.

It's really no more complicated than that.

Sorry ... I didn't catch that you were being facetious. I do like the idea of being a Tropical Fruit Starburst though ... that could be a lot of fun if you landed in the right bag.

He was not being facetious - he was using a metaphor - FYI.

Naw, that was Inigo Montoya, so I guess he was being metaphorically facetious.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 121 by JP Cusick]

IM said this which I had responded to:

Unless, of course, you decide to call God consciousness. Or a transcendent aspect-sharing first source of all consciousness. Then display the obvious existence of at least one consciousness. At which point God only remains invisible, yet proven.

FYI - it is possible to be facetious while using a metaphor. They are not mutually exclusive - FYI.

Definition of facetious (Merriam-Webster):

1 :joking or jesting often inappropriately :waggish ·just being facetious

2 :meant to be humorous or funny :not serious ·a facetious remark