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]

Then what remains is a subject experience............and there are far too many of them conflicting with each other to ever come to a conclusion that one is right and the others are wrong...........as a result we have a plurality of truth claims with each person confident theirs is correct and others are headed to hell........

You might want to broaden your horizon to see a better picture of things.

There is no reason why it has to be God as an idol or else God by every person's interpretation, or else there is no God at all.

And why would you include hell? I know that there is no hell, and we are not taking about science trying to search for heaven or for hell or for the crucifixion - to search for God only means searching for God - and figure out any particulars after finding the focal point.

Could you imagine if the laws of gravity were subject to interpretation?

Reality would be insane in that case.....

That is not accurate.

There are at least two (2) versions of gravity, being Newton or Einstein version, and there are significant differences as in Newton said that gravity pulls inward while Einstein said that gravity pushes inward (falls) which is contradictory versions of gravity.

And there is nothing wrong that I know of in having different interpretations of gravity or of a super nova or of Black Holes, because having different versions is part of the process.

[2timothy316]

And there is nothing wrong that I know of in having different interpretations of gravity or of a super nova or of Black Holes, because having different versions is part of the process.

As long as God has it right, humans can speculate as much as we wish. This is a fine example of belief and truth. It's also a fine example of humans really not even knowing how they stay on the very planet they live on. Are we pulled or pushed? As long as I stay on it and that part doesn't change then we are free to guess all we want.

[paarsurrey1]

Its a meaningless prospect to assume an objective search for a God.

Then do not do an objective search.

Religion has forever been telling people to get away from the idols (the objects) and seek God where God can be found.

Science is the one demanding that God must be put under a microscope or in front of a telescope or else God can not be real, and that is how science completely misses out on the search.

Objective = not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased:

Science is the one with the prejudice and personal feelings of denying the existence of God without any facts or research.

To find the truth then science needs religion to do the job right.

Science is the one demanding that God must be put under a microscope or in front of a telescope or else God can not be real, and that is how science completely misses out on the search.

Strictly speaking it is not even science that demands it, it is the aggressive eulogizers of science or the Atheism and their different sub-sets/sects/denominations who demand it. Science has never taken up this subject formally and it will never do it as it is out of the domain and limits of the science. Right, please?
Regards

[marco]

[Replying to post 102 by PghPanther]

This post explains exactly why science is useless in relation to such ideas of GOD and why the demand for burden of proof in relation to such ideas is a fallacy.

Science may be useless in the God area but the post you refer to doesn't explain why, though it tries. For example:

"Okay then for a God to claim that it would have to go to the end of eternity....then look back and say..........I've existed for all eternity so that proves I'm eternal.......but a God could never do that because you can't get to the end of eternity to ever claim that.........there could always be some time in the future of eternity where this God would come to an end and it would never know that. "

This is just a mess of words: speaking of eternity and then "end" of eternity, where God looks back from a defined impossibility. God is best left alone, proofless and invisible.

[Inigo Montoya]

" 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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 114 by Inigo Montoya]

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.

"Proven" ... only by this questionable definition of God as consciousness or a source of consciousness.

[otseng]

I think these guys are on the right track. First a person must get past their own intellectual dishonesty before a search can even begin.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid indirect attacks on others. Also, please stick to the OP.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 115 by DrNoGods]

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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 117 by Inigo Montoya]

That's the entire point, Dr.

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.

[William]

[Replying to post 102 by PghPanther]

This post explains exactly why science is useless in relation to such ideas of GOD and why the demand for burden of proof in relation to such ideas is a fallacy.

Science may be useless in the God area but the post you refer to doesn't explain why, though it tries. For example:

"Okay then for a God to claim that it would have to go to the end of eternity....then look back and say..........I've existed for all eternity so that proves I'm eternal.......but a God could never do that because you can't get to the end of eternity to ever claim that.........there could always be some time in the future of eternity where this God would come to an end and it would never know that. "

This is just a mess of words: speaking of eternity and then "end" of eternity, where God looks back from a defined impossibility. God is best left alone, proofless and invisible.

Yes I agree and spotted that and other inconsistencies in the argument the post presented.

All in all, I saw a very good example as to why science is a useless device for such a thing, and why burden of proof for the existence of GOD is fallacy.

God is best left alone, proofless and invisible.

By the process and argument of science, yes.

The individual is free to choose as they will. Being blind (in relation to an invisible GOD) does not mean your other senses are incapable of perceiving and intuiting.