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]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

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

The first step would have to be agreeing as to what is meant by GOD.

For example, Intelligent Design as an idea can be examined from a scientific position by taking those two words -

'Intelligent' and 'Design'

and then agreeing that in order to have intelligence and be creative, the GOD would also have to be conscious and self aware.

So then one could look for evidence of self aware creative consciousness in the universe to see if such exists which could be attributed to Intelligent Design and thus an Intelligent Designer.

Then one could say 'This is what is meant by GOD' and see where that might scientifically lead.

Yes that is exactly the right criteria ~ and may God bless you for being so openly bold to say that.

The criteria is not to find the Christian God, or the Jewish God, or the eastern versions of God, but to give an honest research into a God based on scientific standards.

And you are correct that an intelligent evolution is a scientific evidence of an intelligent design and possible Designer.

It does not need to have the name as "God" because whatever the Creator is ~ it will surely be some thing very different from the barbaric notion of the thing that religion calls as God.

I myself have long said that the name "God" is inaccurate and wrong, so it needs a more accurate scientific name for whatever the Creator might be.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

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

The first step would have to be agreeing as to what is meant by GOD.

For example, Intelligent Design as an idea can be examined from a scientific position by taking those two words -

'Intelligent' and 'Design'

and then agreeing that in order to have intelligence and be creative, the GOD would also have to be conscious and self aware.

So then one could look for evidence of self aware creative consciousness in the universe to see if such exists which could be attributed to Intelligent Design and thus an Intelligent Designer.

Then one could say 'This is what is meant by GOD' and see where that might scientifically lead.

Yes that is exactly the right criteria ~ and may God bless you for being so openly bold to say that.

Maybe the blessing is in the boldness? I don't feel it is a matter of being bold. It is a matter of being logical and inclusive.

The criteria is not to find the Christian God, or the Jewish God, or the eastern versions of God, but to give an honest research into a God based on scientific standards.

I was informed today of a meeting which was being held where the guest speaker was a biologist who was going to give a talk on Creationism and the bible.

I declined the invitation as I am keenly interested in the subject of Intelligent design, but not in the subject of which religions idea of GOD gets the credit.

And you are correct that an intelligent evolution is a scientific evidence of an intelligent design and possible Designer.

I think so too.

It does not need to have the name as "God" because whatever the Creator is ~ it will surely be some thing very different from the barbaric notion of the thing that religion calls as God.

I myself have long said that the name "God" is inaccurate and wrong, so it needs a more accurate scientific name for whatever the Creator might be.

Generally speaking organised religions have names for their idea of GOD - in most cases, many names.
Christianity was brash enough to proclaim the title 'GOD' as also the name of their idea of GOD.

Generically I see no problem with the title GOD being used in relation to any Intelligent Designer in relation to both the creation of the universe and the creation of biological life forms related to Earth.

I see these as aspects of the same consciousness, engaged in different positions and acting according to those positions.

There is a theory which proposes that an inter-dimensional being called Anu - king of a species of infinite beings called the Anunnaki which created this universe as a means of trapping a less knowledgeable infinite species within for the purpose of enslaving them.

The Mythology can be read here. [The-Fifth-Interview-of-Dr.-Neruda1.pdf]

The reason I bring it up is:

1: The mythology is unmistakably aligning the Abrahamic idea of GOD with Anu/Anunnaki.

2: Just because a species have such creative abilities and can - in light of that =be referred to as GOD/GODs, does not mean that they behave as TRUE GODs would/should behave.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by McCulloch]

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

The first step would have to be agreeing as to what is meant by GOD.

For example, Intelligent Design as an idea can be examined from a scientific position by taking those two words -

'Intelligent' and 'Design'

and then agreeing that in order to have intelligence and be creative, the GOD would also have to be conscious and self aware.

So then one could look for evidence of self aware creative consciousness in the universe to see if such exists which could be attributed to Intelligent Design and thus an Intelligent Designer.

Then one could say 'This is what is meant by GOD' and see where that might scientifically lead.

It seems to me that this has already been done. This is certainly not a new idea. The problem is that there is no evidence that there is any "self-aware creative consciousness" required to create the "designs" we see in nature. To the contrary a totally brainless and unaware process of natural evolution actually explains what we see much better.

The problem is that our universe, and especially the biology of living creatures on the earth are actually quite horribly "designed". In fact, with the discovery that genetic "self-aware creative engineering" is now indeed possible, there are many genetic engineers who are proposing far better ways to design biological life that would be far superior to what exists from natural selection via random evolution of genes.

So if we approach the problem from this perspective, (i.e using this definition for "God") then we can conclude that there is no "self-away creative conscious designer" associated with our universe. In other words, a God defined in this way clearly does not exist, unless we also conclude that this God isn't very bright and is using a trial and error method of trying to design things. But that would require that God isn't very bright, not even as bright as human genetic engineers since human engineers already have far better ideas of how to design things. So this "God" would need to be less intelligent and creative than human engineers.

In fact, many humans who aren't even engineers can see where vast improvements could be made to something like the human body. Obvious examples are to have separate openings for breathing and eating. Another obvious example would be to have separate organs for reproduction and waste removal. Let's face it, the human body is hardly the epitome of what even a mundane human could imagine creating.

[JP Cusick]

Generally speaking organised religions have names for their idea of GOD - in most cases, many names.
Christianity was brash enough to proclaim the title 'GOD' as also the name of their idea of GOD.

Generically I see no problem with the title GOD being used in relation to any Intelligent Designer in relation to both the creation of the universe and the creation of biological life forms related to Earth.

I see these as aspects of the same consciousness, engaged in different positions and acting according to those positions.

There is a theory which proposes that an inter-dimensional being called Anu - king of a species of infinite beings called the Anunnaki which created this universe as a means of trapping a less knowledgeable infinite species within for the purpose of enslaving them.

The Mythology can be read here. [The-Fifth-Interview-of-Dr.-Neruda1.pdf]

The reason I bring it up is:

1: The mythology is unmistakably aligning the Abrahamic idea of GOD with Anu/Anunnaki.

2: Just because a species have such creative abilities and can - in light of that =be referred to as GOD/GODs, does not mean that they behave as TRUE GODs would/should behave.

I really agree with what you are saying here.

And I like that link too.



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

The problem is that our universe, and especially the biology of living creatures on the earth are actually quite horribly "designed". In fact, with the discovery that genetic "self-aware creative engineering" is now indeed possible, there are many genetic engineers who are proposing far better ways to design biological life that would be far superior to what exists from natural selection via random evolution of genes.

So if we approach the problem from this perspective, (i.e using this definition for "God") then we can conclude that there is no "self-away creative conscious designer" associated with our universe. In other words, a God defined in this way clearly does not exist, unless we also conclude that this God isn't very bright and is using a trial and error method of trying to design things. But that would require that God isn't very bright, not even as bright as human genetic engineers since human engineers already have far better ideas of how to design things. So this "God" would need to be less intelligent and creative than human engineers.

We are told - and supported by the facts - that the point and plan of the creation including humanity was to be simple and simplistic and that is what we find.

The more complex and sophisticated then the more complications and problems.

As such humans can indeed find better ways to improve life and then we face the complications.

There is a comparison and a revelation to the Father God - which is that the ultimate invention for human science is to create an Android which is exactly like a real person - because that would be the perfect invention.

~ The Stepford Wives = but better than that - without the complications.

[Divine Insight]

We are told - and supported by the facts - that the point and plan of the creation including humanity was to be simple and simplistic and that is what we find.

Who told us that this was the point and plan of creation?

The more complex and sophisticated then the more complications and problems.

Nothing I suggested would necessarily require more complex or sophisticated systems. So this is non-sequitur.

As such humans can indeed find better ways to improve life and then we face the complications.

Most of the complications in life that we face are not due to our improvements to life, but rather to the original bad designs of natural evolution.

There is a comparison and a revelation to the Father God - which is that the ultimate invention for human science is to create an Android which is exactly like a real person - because that would be the perfect invention.

Perfect in what sense? The Japanese strive to create a human-like android mainly because artificial life that appears as a human is the most appealing to humans. Not because it's the perfect design. In fact, it's not the perfect design for many things.

~ The Stepford Wives = but better than that - without the complications.

I can't imagine what the Stepford Wives would have to do with this topic. Actually the God of the Bible is the one who wants nothing but Stepford Wives in his heavenly kingdom. If you aren't prepared to be totally submissive and obedient to his wishes you are not permitted in his kingdom.

So ironically the God that the Christians worship is actually the epitome of the type of male chauvinist who would indeed employ the tactics used in the satirical thriller "The Stepford Wives". If a human male does this we consider him to be an immoral criminal. But if the Christian God does it it's considered to be "divine".

I think these kinds of immoral principles also reveal the fallacy of the Biblical God. As I always say, there is no science required to recognize the fallacy of the Biblical God. We can see its fallacy in many ways without even any need to apply physics to the paradigm.

[paarsurrey1]

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?

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:

[6:103] Such is Allah*, your Lord. There is no God but He, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He is Guardian over everything.
[6:104] Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware.
[6:105] Proofs have indeed come to you from your Lord; so whoever sees, it is for his own good; and whoever becomes blind, it is to his own harm. And I am not a guardian over you.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... &verse=103
*The One-True-God

It is because One-True-God is only attributive, He has no physical/material body, and He is not even a Spirit. Right, please?
Regards

[William]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

It seems to me that this has already been done.

You are suggesting that people using scientific method have identified and come to an agreement as to what is meant by GOD?

This is certainly not a new idea.

What is not a new idea?

The problem is that there is no evidence that there is any "self-aware creative consciousness" required to create the "designs" we see in nature.

This has been discussed/debated at length recently on this site.

Links to these discussions can be found here:

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

To the contrary a totally brainless and unaware process of natural evolution actually explains what we see much better.

From one of those links:

What is observed and then interpreted (as with the above interpretation) is not necessarily what is actually taking place.

Consciousness is limited to the instrument it is experiencing. This means that as the body gets older and more run down etc, consciousness is limited by that. It is not consciousness which is deteriorating. It is the material.

This is to say, in accordance with philosophical ideas to do with Pantheism, no matter how large or small the container, or how quickly or slowly the container deteriorates, or how limited consciousness becomes within the container, consciousness itself is - as its default - eternal, has no use-by date, and is able to divest itself innumerably into myriad form, biological or otherwise, and for that matter does not require a brain in order to experience itself within form.

The TRUTH is that the theory of evolution/materialism without the inclusion of Intelligent Design, is the very thing which insists on a 'magical source'.

The problem is that our universe, and especially the biology of living creatures on the earth are actually quite horribly "designed".

I think it is, at the very least, an arrogant expression of egoism which deems it necessary to make such a pronouncement.

In fact, with the discovery that genetic "self-aware creative engineering" is now indeed possible, there are many genetic engineers who are proposing far better ways to design biological life that would be far superior to what exists from natural selection via random evolution of genes.

What may look 'random' to a group of subjective individuals living within a tiny slither of linear time on the planet, may not be random whatsoever in relation to the Earth Entity who designed these forms and has existed for a great chunk of said linear time as this planet.

There may come a day when human beings will have found ways to extend their individual existences - perhaps even indefinitely. From that perspective, they would have - in their own eyes - made something 'perfect' from something 'imperfect', and in doing so succeed in holding death at bay, which in turn would make the subject of afterlife something which need not be contemplated, and the subject of GOD as something one has - at least tentatively - become. Newbie GODs about to learn the ropes.

Such as would be the case, they deserve to spend the rest of their existence within this universe learning what to do with their GOD-like perfectness.

So if we approach the problem from this perspective, (i.e using this definition for "God") then we can conclude that there is no "self-away creative conscious designer" associated with our universe. In other words, a God defined in this way clearly does not exist, unless we also conclude that this God isn't very bright and is using a trial and error method of trying to design things. But that would require that God isn't very bright, not even as bright as human genetic engineers since human engineers already have far better ideas of how to design things. So this "God" would need to be less intelligent and creative than human engineers.

That is a big assumption. You are having to dispense with/have not thought to include the notions that this universe was designed specifically to enable such a thing to take place.
In relation this this post:

♦ Fractals give a great visual of the processes of GOD+Creativity&Exploration

There are infinite possibilities for First Source creativity and exploration in relation to conscious experience.
Your assertion that if a creator was involved in creating this universe then It must be stupid doesn't account for the fact that an extremely intelligent Entity must have been involved with the creation of life on this planet, even given the supposed designer faults, human beings have yet to create anything near as intricate as the human form, let alone other forms.

Not to forget that even with the amazing inventions which humans have created, this all took a very long time for them to evolved to the state where they could. Such are the processes in relation to this particular universe. Slowly and surely.

Also you have not included the notion I gave regarding consciousness being limited in relation to the form it occupies, which in the case of the EE, in order to create the form requires a great deal of linear time.

But once the form is created, even despite the flaws and imperfections, they have proven to be very useful in being able to utilize in order to continue the process of creativity within the framework and limitations of this universe.

Also, you have neglected to see in the scope of the requirements of GOD as a scientific question, that perfection is not listed as a necessary attribute.

Just as you have neglected to see in the overall philosophy of Pantheism that it is GOD [the local Earth Entity] within the forms being the scientists and engineers etc who are 'doing even better things' - improving on what has so far been created. Thus everything related to the earthbound consciousness is altogether the overall consciousness Earth Entity Expression.

Separating GOD-consciousness from all other forms of consciousness is - well...

...more on the pitfalls of this type of thinking can be read here:

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

It seems to me that this has already been done.

You are suggesting that people using scientific method have identified and come to an agreement as to what is meant by GOD?

No not at all. There is no need to come to any consensus on what is meant by the term "god" in general. Scientists can easily consider various different concepts of god and address why those specific concepts are not compatible with nature.

You offered a very specific requirement for "god" and science has already debunked that specific scenario.

This is certainly not a new idea.

What is not a new idea?

The idea that there might be a need for an intelligent designer to design the natural world. That idea has been shown to be extremely flawed.

The problem is that there is no evidence that there is any "self-aware creative consciousness" required to create the "designs" we see in nature.

This has been discussed/debated at length recently on this site.

Links to these discussions can be found here:

♦ Is consciousness an emergent property of the brain?

Here you are attempting to change your original proposal of a need for an intelligent designer into a proposal that since we cannot yet explain consciousness this might result in the need to hypothesize the existence of a "god".

First off, you would then be changing your definition for what God "is". And secondly, in this specific scenario religions like Buddhism fair far better than the Abrahamic religions. In fact, in the Abrahamic religion, the concept of consciousness would still be extremely problematic. After all, if we can be conscious without God (which is what the Abrahamic religions require) then claiming that God is required to explain consciousness fails.

To the contrary a totally brainless and unaware process of natural evolution actually explains what we see much better.

From one of those links:

What is observed and then interpreted (as with the above interpretation) is not necessarily what is actually taking place.

Consciousness is limited to the instrument it is experiencing. This means that as the body gets older and more run down etc, consciousness is limited by that. It is not consciousness which is deteriorating. It is the material.

This is to say, in accordance with philosophical ideas to do with Pantheism, no matter how large or small the container, or how quickly or slowly the container deteriorates, or how limited consciousness becomes within the container, consciousness itself is - as its default - eternal, has no use-by date, and is able to divest itself innumerably into myriad form, biological or otherwise, and for that matter does not require a brain in order to experience itself within form.

The TRUTH is that the theory of evolution/materialism without the inclusion of Intelligent Design, is the very thing which insists on a 'magical source'.

So? Keep in mind that you did not original define "God" as merely a "magical source". In fact, that very concept itself is ill-defined. What would it mean for a source to be "magical"?

You're entering into a whole new discussion at this point.

The problem is that our universe, and especially the biology of living creatures on the earth are actually quite horribly "designed".

I think it is, at the very least, an arrogant expression of egoism which deems it necessary to make such a pronouncement.

Your personal thoughts on this have been noted. In the meantime they don't appear to have anything at all to do with the discussion at hand.

In fact, with the discovery that genetic "self-aware creative engineering" is now indeed possible, there are many genetic engineers who are proposing far better ways to design biological life that would be far superior to what exists from natural selection via random evolution of genes.

What may look 'random' to a group of subjective individuals living within a tiny slither of linear time on the planet, may not be random whatsoever in relation to the Earth Entity who designed these forms and has existed for a great chunk of said linear time as this planet.

There may come a day when human beings will have found ways to extend their individual existences - perhaps even indefinitely. From that perspective, they would have - in their own eyes - made something 'perfect' from something 'imperfect', and in doing so succeed in holding death at bay, which in turn would make the subject of afterlife something which need not be contemplated, and the subject of GOD as something one has - at least tentatively - become. Newbie GODs about to learn the ropes.

Such as would be the case, they deserve to spend the rest of their existence within this universe learning what to do with their GOD-like perfectness.

Everything you've just said here is nothing more than raw speculation unsupported by any evidence at all. That's hardly the way that science is done.

So if we approach the problem from this perspective, (i.e using this definition for "God") then we can conclude that there is no "self-away creative conscious designer" associated with our universe. In other words, a God defined in this way clearly does not exist, unless we also conclude that this God isn't very bright and is using a trial and error method of trying to design things. But that would require that God isn't very bright, not even as bright as human genetic engineers since human engineers already have far better ideas of how to design things. So this "God" would need to be less intelligent and creative than human engineers.

That is a big assumption. You are having to dispense with/have not thought to include the notions that this universe was designed specifically to enable such a thing to take place.

Again, we have no evidence that there was any specific design or reason for this universe to exist. So you are the one who is putting the cart before the horse by assuming an imagined purpose for the universe.

In relation this this post:

♦ Fractals give a great visual of the processes of GOD+Creativity&Exploration

There are infinite possibilities for First Source creativity and exploration in relation to conscious experience.
Your assertion that if a creator was involved in creating this universe then It must be stupid doesn't account for the fact that an extremely intelligent Entity must have been involved with the creation of life on this planet, even given the supposed designer faults, human beings have yet to create anything near as intricate as the human form, let alone other forms.

Humans may not have done this yet, but predictions are that humans will very soon create intelligent man-made beings that will be far superior to humans and that this could happen in the very near future.

So your argument here is an argument for a "God of the Gaps", and this is a "gap" that appears to be rapidly evaporating.

Not to forget that even with the amazing inventions which humans have created, this all took a very long time for them to evolved to the state where they could. Such are the processes in relation to this particular universe. Slowly and surely.

If this universe was such a great design then why are human inventions necessary at all to improve upon it? Clearly the amazing inventions that humans have come up with have improved upon human life and the living conditions on this planet. Thus this observation actually destroys your original claim that the universe was "intelligently designed" in the first place.

So you have just confirmed that the idea that God must be an "intelligent designer" is already dead in the water.

Also you have not included the notion I gave regarding consciousness being limited in relation to the form it occupies, which in the case of the EE, in order to create the form requires a great deal of linear time.

But once the form is created, even despite the flaws and imperfections, they have proven to be very useful in being able to utilize in order to continue the process of creativity within the framework and limitations of this universe.

Also, you have neglected to see in the scope of the requirements of GOD as a scientific question, that perfection is not listed as a necessary attribute.

You automatically imply that perfection is indeed a necessary attribute of God the moment that you suggest that this God is required for the intelligent design of anything. In fact, if God's designs are not "perfect" then to what degree are they "intelligent"? You would then need to place restrictions on your God's intelligence. It's not going to be a convincing theology at that point. At that point you end up doing nothing more than attempting to reduce your God's intelligence to the level of the unintelligent designed universe we find ourselves in.

So your arguments are already logically flawed.

Just as you have neglected to see in the overall philosophy of Pantheism that it is GOD [the local Earth Entity] within the forms being the scientists and engineers etc who are 'doing even better things' - improving on what has so far been created. Thus everything related to the earthbound consciousness is altogether the overall consciousness Earth Entity Expression.

There are reasons in Pantheism why a pantheistic god would employ a less than perfect system of evolution. This would be done on purpose. However, note also that "Intelligent Design" cannot be a reason to suggest that a pantheistic God exists. So this is outside the scope of your original proposal.

Separating GOD-consciousness from all other forms of consciousness is - well...

...more on the pitfalls of this type of thinking can be read here:

♦ Separating any idea of GOD from All other Consciousness.

This is irrelevant for the Abrahamic religions. In the Abrahamic religions all humans have a sovereign consciousness that is indeed separate from God's consciousness. And the fate of the human state of consciousness is the whole point of this religious paradigm.

If you want humans to have the same consciousness as "God" you need to embrace Pantheism. But then arguments for "Intelligent Design" are no longer required because that concept is not required in Pantheism.

To the best of my knowledge there are no sound scientific arguments that can be made against Pantheism, just as there are no sound scientific arguments that can be made against Solipsism.

But that's a whole other topic from the argument of "Intelligent Design".

[William]

[Replying to post 18 by Divine Insight]

No not at all. There is no need to come to any consensus on what is meant by the term "god" in general. Scientists can easily consider various different concepts of god and address why those specific concepts are not compatible with nature.

You offered a very specific requirement for "god" and science has already debunked that specific scenario.

Should I just take your word for it then?

The idea that there might be a need for an intelligent designer to design the natural world.

Who was arguing that it is a new idea?
The manner in which I expand on the idea may be new or not, but I fail to see the relevance of your comment.

That idea has been shown to be extremely flawed.

Should I just take your word for it then?

Here you are attempting to change your original proposal of a need for an intelligent designer into a proposal that since we cannot yet explain consciousness this might result in the need to hypothesize the existence of a "god".

I am doing no such thing. I am simply linking you to data relevant to the discussion. If materialism were the true interpretation, then your comment would be relevant.

First off, you would then be changing your definition for what God "is".

Should I just take your word for it then? In case you are missing the point, what I am asking is, 'why are you making these statements without even providing any example as to what you are referring to?'

And secondly, in this specific scenario religions like Buddhism fair far better than the Abrahamic religions.

You are obviously conflating what I actually say about Intelligent Design with the idea of the Abrahamic GOD. This simple shows me that you have not even bothered to actually read what I have been saying about Intelligent Design.

In fact, in the Abrahamic religion, the concept of consciousness would still be extremely problematic. After all, if we can be conscious without God (which is what the Abrahamic religions require) then claiming that God is required to explain consciousness fails.

I am unaware of what Buddhism claims in relation to GOD. You have not thought it necessary to cite anything regarding that, so - once again - should I take your word for it then?

So? Keep in mind that you did not original define "God" as merely a "magical source".

No I define GOD as Consciousness. I have never defined GOD as a "magical source".

In fact, that very concept itself is ill-defined. What would it mean for a source to be "magical"?

Obviously you haven't really read what I have to say about this or you would understand I was replying to someone who defined Intelligent Design as a "magical source"

Your personal thoughts on this have been noted.

So have yours.

In the meantime they don't appear to have anything at all to do with the discussion at hand.

Then neither do the comments you made, to which I responded to with reasonable observation.

Everything you've just said here is nothing more than raw speculation unsupported by any evidence at all. That's hardly the way that science is done.

You respond to 3 paragraphs with a simply one-liner. That is hardly the way good debate is done.
The focus of my argument is that the evidence is such that any opinion ether way is speculation, but at least I make the effort to present philosophical argument to a philosophical interpretation.

The interpretation of materialism is merely excluding all philosophy on the subject of what is being observed as evidence. Thus the evidence is simply interpreted from a materialistic position. That in itself is no indication that materialism is therefore the correct way to interpret the evidence.

At least I make the effort to say why the evidence can be interpreted differently and why that is relevant.

Your hand-waving one-liners are not argument.

Again, we have no evidence that there was any specific design or reason for this universe to exist. So you are the one who is putting the cart before the horse by assuming an imagined purpose for the universe.

That is a terrible argument. It is based solely on the assumption that materialism is the true way one should interpret the evidence. My argument is in no way putting any cart before the horse. It is simply showing that there is more than one way to interpret the evidence.

It is all very well for you to make such statements, but again...all you are really doing is telling me I should take your word for it that materialism - the materialistic interpretation - is the TRUTH. It is obviously your truth, but that is besides the point.

I require far more from you than 'I said so, so that makes it so', and really, that is what you are saying. The reality is, neither of us can really know for sure, and this is exactly why philosophy continues to be relevant and why debate is ongoing. It would be great if you could actually debate what I have said.

It just goes to show that materialists can be as dogmatic as theists.

[JP Cusick]

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.

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.

Science without religion is lame.