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?

[McCulloch]

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.

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.

What reforms would you make to science to make it more capable of detecting, measuring and otherwise analyzing spiritual reality? Please be as specific as possible.

[JP Cusick]

What reforms would you make to science to make it more capable of detecting, measuring and otherwise analyzing spiritual reality? Please be as specific as possible.

To have an open mind is surely the most important criteria.

There is no research criteria that can get around the closed minds.

[marco]

To have an open mind is surely the most important criteria.

There is no research criteria that can get around the closed minds.

This is a remarkable suggestion: that scientists employ an open mind. That is the be all and the end all of scientific work; without an open mind many major discoveries would not have been made. I am in contact with people who work diligently on the toughest of mathematics problems while investigating such things as event horizons in black holes. Their minds are awesomely open.

But let us examine our own minds, JP, and ask whether WE have the open minds that we would wish on scientists. It is clear that those who are stuck in ancient myth have no open mind; their thoughts are weighed down by the fictional legacies of our scientifically ignorant ancestors. Science without religion does remarkably well, despite Einstein's generous comment.

[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.

[H.sapiens]

What reforms would you make to science to make it more capable of detecting, measuring and otherwise analyzing spiritual reality? Please be as specific as possible.

To have an open mind is surely the most important criteria.

There is no research criteria that can get around the closed minds.

To have an open mind is surely the most important criteria.

There is no research criteria that can get around the closed minds.

This is a remarkable suggestion: that scientists employ an open mind. That is the be all and the end all of scientific work; without an open mind many major discoveries would not have been made. I am in contact with people who work diligently on the toughest of mathematics problems while investigating such things as event horizons in black holes. Their minds are awesomely open.

But let us examine our own minds, JP, and ask whether WE have the open minds that we would wish on scientists. It is clear that those who are stuck in ancient myth have no open mind; their thoughts are weighed down by the fictional legacies of our scientifically ignorant ancestors.

An open mind is always important, but accepting claims for which there is no evidence is keeping a mind that is so open that your brains fall out.

Science without religion does remarkably well, despite Einstein's generous comment.

Here's a perspective on what Einstein actually said and meant: https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/ ... ean-taught

Given a choice between lame and blind I'd take lame any day, wouldn't you?

[Neatras]

Let's not forget that on multiple occasions, JP Cusick has asserted that to not believe in a god is a defect. According to his logic, the only way to be open-minded is to presuppose a god. The only way to be open-minded is to use God as an axiom in scientific research, regardless of the evidence against asserting an intelligence behind life's development.

This isn't an ad hominem attack or a comment against a user, this is a clarification that open-mindedness means something different to JP Cusick than it does to everyone else. He's free to correct me though, so long as he's consistent with the posts he's made in the past.

[McCulloch]

What reforms would you make to science to make it more capable of detecting, measuring and otherwise analyzing spiritual reality? Please be as specific as possible.

To have an open mind is surely the most important criteria.

There is no research criteria that can get around the closed minds.

Thank you for entirely ignoring my request for specificity.

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.

[Wootah]

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.

Moderator Comment

Hi JP Cusick,

I liked the black hole point but when we rant the rant often leads to uncivil phrases such as blind-stupid to the truth.

Also it's just an ad hominem to say science without religion is lame.


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.

[Divine Insight]

Should I just take your word for it then?

You don't need to take my word for anything William. Scientific knowledge is open to the public. All you need to do is look into it for yourself. The information you seek is readily available.

All of the arguments you have given thus far as nothing more than abrupt apologies that move the goalpost with every post you make. The point I made was that "Intelligent Design" as an argument for God has indeed been shown by scientific knowledge to be an empty argument that has no basis.

Recognizing this fact, you then want to move on to arguing about "consciousness" as your next goalpost. However, God as our consciousness is not compatible with the Abrahamic picture of God. That would be a pantheistic view of God which I have already acknowledged.

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

I'm not a "materialist" so I have no clue why you even brought that up. I simply pointed out that science can indeed dismiss some definitions of God. Obviously if you keep changing your definition of God in an attempt to avoid what science has shown to be false definitions then you can keep dodging the bullet.

But even doing that, at the very best, all you can do is end up with something that has no more evidence than solipsism. Science can't disprove solipsism. No one can.

And if that's the best you can do for you "God", then there's no more reason to believe in your "God" than there is to believe in solipsism. Especially when the best you can do is define God as your own consciousness. Which is all you can do when you define God in this way, because you can't even prove that anyone is conscious other than yourself.

So your approach to "God" isn't any better than Solipsism. Or at the very best Pantheism which is not compatible with the Abrahamic God. I don't deny Pantheism. In fact, I'm far closer to being a Pantheist than a Materialist. However, instead I prefer to stick with agnosticism which is the only truly honest way to go. But my agnosticism only allows for a Pantheistic God. I think it's fair to rule out Gods like, Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Apollo, Jesus, etc. Those God myths are all clearly false.

If a God exists at all, it's just about guaranteed to be a Pantheistic God. And why anyone would even care to argue with that is beyond me. Unless they have been convinced that some egotistical God like Yahweh actually exists and might be ticked off at them if they fail to support and defend his existence. But arguing for any God out of fear that he might be upset or angry with us if we don't argue for him is a pretty sad theology in any case. Yet that's the very foundation of the Abrahamic religions.

[William]

[Replying to post 29 by Divine Insight]

I read you reply and it appears to me that you are replying to someone else, mainly due to your misrepresentation of me, which is inexcusable considering the amount of data I have available to anyone so inclined to check it out in my thread in the Members Notes section, which incidentally I linked you to in a previous post in this thread.

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.

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.