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?

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 61 by JP Cusick]

Well JP I must agree with you on one thing. Science and the scientific method definitely gets in the way of truly studying the spiritual world. If we were all as open-minded as you there would be a Hogwarts University in every State. I've always wanted to fly on a broom in a game of quidditch. Be well Sir.

Science and the scientific method definitely gets in the way of truly studying the spiritual world.

I believe that Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism people most of the time hide behind science, though these ideologies are far from following science, necessarily.
Regards

The reason science and the scientific method "get in the way" is because they make it a lot harder to make baseless claims of unsupported fancy about the existence of worlds that have no basis in fact.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 69 by paarsurrey1]

Please learn to use google as most people dislike performing trivial tasks for you that as an adult your should be able to do for yourself.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/ ... ean-taught

[JP Cusick]

[Replying to post 69 by paarsurrey1]Please learn to use google as most people dislike performing trivial tasks for you that as an adult your should be able to do for yourself.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/ ... ean-taught

You have been told this before = that it does not matter whatever Einstein meant because the words speak for their self and the words have their own meaning.

Einstein is not to be treated as some God where we must interpret the meaning of the God Einstein.

Einstein gets credit for the quote - but he does not control the meaning of the words.

Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.

Clearly for science then Einstein is regarded as some kind of scientific Prophet or scientific Saint - and the rest of us do not want to play along with that regard.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 7 by McCulloch]


"Scientists have for generations included the possibility of a god. They eventually found that the God hypothesis did not help them at all."


Nicola Tesla would disagree.

And, what is the model that included the god hypothesis helped him in his theories? Which of his scientific theories included God?

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 69 by paarsurrey1]Please learn to use google as most people dislike performing trivial tasks for you that as an adult your should be able to do for yourself.

https://newrepublic.com/article/115821/ ... ean-taught

You have been told this before = that it does not matter whatever Einstein meant because the words speak for their self and the words have their own meaning.

Einstein is not to be treated as some God where we must interpret the meaning of the God Einstein.

Einstein gets credit for the quote - but he does not control the meaning of the words.

Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.

Clearly for science then Einstein is regarded as some kind of scientific Prophet or scientific Saint - and the rest of us do not want to play along with that regard.

Like most thiests you just don't get it. Using a cute quote taken from a bright guy is an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are logical only if the authority is,in fact, an authority and the quote is unadulterated by quote mining (taken to mean something not intended by the author). In this case the appeal to authority fails, on both counts, and thus is a logical fallacy twice over. Since you are also not an authority, and the quote carries no more weight than just your say-so, there is no reason to take your restatement of it seriously either but rather, is obviously both lame and blind.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 74 by H.sapiens]

Hey man, maybe if we give him a chance to make an actual argument, he'll do something... like repeating the quote and adding nothing else to the discussion. I mean, this is just based on the last 12 times it happened.

But let's step back and see what Cusick is trying to accomplish... I'm not sure, but the larger effect is that if we let his senseless repetition of a single line ad infinitum actually constitute an argument, we dumb down the debate platform as a whole. Which, since Cusick has accused critics and skeptics of being deficient, bullies, or immoral, that may very well be the purpose behind plugging his ears and repeating a quote endlessly and ignoring all counter-arguments. His say-so has been the only thing keeping the discussion going on the theists' side, and that's pretty telling of the state of this specific debate.

Cusick, if you ever wanna tell us what you think your argument is achieving, it might help us learn how to advance the discussion on scientifically searching for a god.

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 74 by H.sapiens]

Hey man, maybe if we give him a chance to make an actual argument, he'll do something... like repeating the quote and adding nothing else to the discussion. I mean, this is just based on the last 12 times it happened.

But let's step back and see what Cusick is trying to accomplish... I'm not sure, but the larger effect is that if we let his senseless repetition of a single line ad infinitum actually constitute an argument, we dumb down the debate platform as a whole. Which, since Cusick has accused critics and skeptics of being deficient, bullies, or immoral, that may very well be the purpose behind plugging his ears and repeating a quote endlessly and ignoring all counter-arguments. His say-so has been the only thing keeping the discussion going on the theists' side, and that's pretty telling of the state of this specific debate.

Cusick, if you ever wanna tell us what you think your argument is achieving, it might help us learn how to advance the discussion on scientifically searching for a god.

Scientifically searching for a god is simple, keep turning over rocks and looking. As is stands no gods have been found and no evidence of gods has been found. The problem with this approach is that there is always another rock, another planet, another black hole, that you're yet to (or find it impossible to) examine, so you have to go with the construct that, on balance, nothing has ever been detected that proves a god exists (that proof is possible requiring, as it does, only a single honest datum) and that the more you look and fail the less likely it is that you will ever succeed. It is my estimation, based on mankind's search to date, that is is rather unlikely that a god exists. I try to keep an open mind but the dishonesty of the theists as they present their search methods and results makes that difficult to do.

[JP Cusick]

Like most thiests you just don't get it. Using a cute quote taken from a bright guy is an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are logical only if the authority is,in fact, an authority and the quote is unadulterated by quote mining (taken to mean something not intended by the author). In this case the appeal to authority fails, on both counts, and thus is a logical fallacy twice over. Since you are also not an authority, and the quote carries no more weight than just your say-so, there is no reason to take your restatement of it seriously either but rather, is obviously both lame and blind.

I can understand why you and others might see me using that quote as me appealing to Einstein as the authority, and yet I was truly content with myself as my authority.

I made that quote without mentioning Einstein, and I have thought about removing the quote marks too, and yet I do not want to make a new sentence out of the same message, so I feel quite stuck, in that this is the words regardless of any authority.

If I word it differently then it would a bit dishonest, and less effective, and Einstein never said to not quote those words, and ho did say it best.

My view is that it is just you and others who use Einstein as an authority, and I can not get around that.

The quote is true and accurate and that is what counts for me.

[H.sapiens]

Like most thiests you just don't get it. Using a cute quote taken from a bright guy is an appeal to authority. Appeals to authority are logical only if the authority is,in fact, an authority and the quote is unadulterated by quote mining (taken to mean something not intended by the author). In this case the appeal to authority fails, on both counts, and thus is a logical fallacy twice over. Since you are also not an authority, and the quote carries no more weight than just your say-so, there is no reason to take your restatement of it seriously either but rather, is obviously both lame and blind.

I can understand why you and others might see me using that quote as me appealing to Einstein as the authority, and yet I was truly content with myself as my authority.

I made that quote without mentioning Einstein, and I have thought about removing the quote marks too, and yet I do not want to make a new sentence out of the same message, so I feel quite stuck, in that this is the words regardless of any authority.

If I word it differently then it would a bit dishonest, and less effective, and Einstein never said to not quote those words, and ho did say it best.

My view is that it is just you and others who use Einstein as an authority, and I can not get around that.

The quote is true and accurate and that is what counts for me.

I use Einstein as an authority only for physics not for philosophy so please retract or be branded a liar.

The quote is used not to accurately convey Einstein's view on religion, thus it is quote mining, something that is a form of lying.

[JP Cusick]

I use Einstein as an authority only for physics not for philosophy so please retract or be branded a liar.

The quote is used not to accurately convey Einstein's view on religion, thus it is quote mining, something that is a form of lying.

So you force this interpretation, and so be it.

I do not really like Einstein as I see him as an immoral little creep, but in other regards he was right on target.

My view is that Einstein did use his philosophy (his belief in God) as one of his basis for his physics, and that is what gave Einstein such a huge advantage over others in physics who did not.

In that regard it does make Einstein as an authority when he rightly declared the sentence.

His quote applies to religion and to philosophy and to science and to physics and that is not a lie to me.

I say you dislike the quote because it tramples on your own disadvantage.

The words are true regardless of your sensitivities.

Science is lame without religion = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.
Religion is blind without science = because that is the way it is - not because Einstein said so.