Is God All In The Mind?

[psyche101]

@ Samm

I have looked into Haisch's work, his childish views on UFO's do not impress me.

[Frank Merton]

It sometimes hits me that so many prefer ancient superstitions and religions to modern science, considering the track records of the two.

[Occult1]

There is no "beyond the boundaries of science" Science is like the Universe, if you throw a spear 50 meters beyond the limit of the universe, the Universe is now 50 meters bigger. People who have good position in religious circles will say this to protect their place, but can you give me one good reason as to why religion is beyond the boundaries of science? How is that not saying "I have no answers and do not ask me"?

From the University of Carlifornia ''Understanding Science, How Science Really Works'' webpage:

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations:

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Source: http://undsci.berkel...hatisscience_12

As we are part of nature, it is only logical to recognize that science, a rational methodology to study the physical world using observation and experimentation, would not be of much help to objectively acquire evidence of that which is beyond nature, and so beyond human senses, the framework of our reality. I would add that there is a risk for scientism to become a sort of religion itself by preaching all sort of assumptions regarding a 'limitless scope of Science', as with the 'limitless scope of God' of certain believers, the very thing you seek to avoid.

We have an honest answer from science, we can say how the Universe was formed, and no, you do not have to be there, but we do have solid sources of evidence to support that conclusion but what do you have on God? A man made and dictated concept.

We can say at which point the Universe was formed but not why. The question of origin beyond this incredibly small singularity - the primary element that we can account for - is left unanswered. There are theories, conjectures but no proof whatsover to support any of them.

Matthew Francis of BBC science puts the finger on it:

''If eternal inflation is correct, then the Big Bang is the origin of our pocket universe, but not the beginning of the whole Universe, which may have begun much earlier. The evidence for multiverses will be indirect at best, even with confirmation of inflation from Planck or other observations. In other words, eternal inflation could answer the question of what preceded the Big Bang, but still leave the question of ultimate origin out of reach.''

Source: http://www.bbc.com/f...re-the-big-bang

You can say that 'nothing' or 'pointlessness' is the ultimate origin but that doesn't answer anything more than the God theory, at least the later add meaning and purpose to the whole process, which is a compelling and rational notion especially when looking at the sheer complexity and beauty of the cosmos. Without proof to support that kind of claims, it remains in the realm of human beliefs though, God or not.

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

The setting forth of the Universe, or Multiverse by a metaphysical progenitor, a 'God' or 'Creator' doesn't need the beliefs in miracles or religions for that matter. Although, it may not be impossible - in my humble opinion - that 'miracles' which seem to defy scientific explanations as well as any other spiritual experiences are manifestations of 'God', who became the Universe and uncounsciously underlies it.

Edited January 13, 2015 by sam_comm

[Frank Merton]

God is both an unnecessary and an extravagant hypothesis.

Unnecessary -- as shown in the above message. Extravagant -- requiring extraordinary proof.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

Hello Thank you for your kind words!

Basically this idea came about because of the question of where God physically is or exist's, what he/her is made of, and does he look like a man like the bible portrays?

Once I started really questioning these, I came to my own conclusions based on the building of other beliefs and theories around the web, that to me seem very plausible. Also one book 'Conversations with God' really helped me clear a lot of things up, I recommend you Google 'Conversations with God Quotes' and click on the '10 Epic Quotes' link.

I will consider that, thanks. As a bookseller I am familiar with this series, that it's highly asked for. I find it listed in the New Age section, which is my kind of section.

Anyway all of that led me to conclude that, God isn't a separate entity but existent everywhere as a shred of thought, as an expression of itself being what it has created. It stretches out infinity, not bound to structure, and in no way could it look like a man when live in an entire universe which in my opinion is sprawling with life. So why would it look like one life form on one Earth? Anyway, once I thought of God as an infinite source of energy, I realised nothing cannot be outside of it, it doesn't have an outside because we are all inside it so to speak. Do you understand what I mean by this? God doesn't have arms or legs and lives in a different place in reality. To me, any and everything that is, is God realising itself through the existence of any and everything that is. We are all one, as some say.

In a sense, I think I do. Thank you, by the way, I like how you are showing how you feel this in your own personal journey, ni which I asked if this is your opinion, or as you say, your conclusion. I often pay attention to those who just say how they feel and how it affects them.

I often reflect on this, and there are times I come to the same conclusions that you do.

To me, once you see God as a whole containing any and everything that is, you can then think of God as thought. Rather than separating the realm of the universe from the realm of Heaven, they are all one. They are just different shades of God's infinite thought. Different expressions of it's infinite creativity.

Ah, thank you. I love this. I am learning so much from your personal experiences. I am .... different, I guess. I often feel that, as you do, but not all the time. I go different paths, on different times. I don't mind that at all thought, I find it adventurous. I know though, you're thoughts answers or it validates certain thoughts I have had. It is so nice to see someone have the same reflections that I do.

Regarding vibrations, and sorry it took this long to address your original question, I feel I needed to add the above to explain better.

Vibrations are the connections between everything, God's blood, so to speak. This is a theory held by some, including me.

I said God is an infinite energy source, so it must be able to be experienced.

God must have some physicality, in a way, in which it builds our dimension and the others. We know already that atoms make up pretty much existence itself with the exception of non materialistic things like time, laws of physics etc... (Btw aren't laws/rules usually the result of intelligent thought?.. Just saying) So once we realise atoms are 99.9% vibrations and apply that to the universe. 99.9% of creation only works because its vibrating itself together.

Love and hate are feelings yes? and feelings are triggered by vibrations in the body and brain would you agree? Sound is vibration and 99.9% of the universe is vibrating. So because all of this is contained within, not outside God, we might conclude then that God works on a vibrating level. Would you agree? That is the conclusion I have reached anyway. Some people hold this belief some think of it as nonsense. To me, it's the most rational way of explaining God scientifically.​

Yes, I think I would agree in a certain sense. I always have felt vibrations had some power, and I often reflect and consider it in my belief. I find, that your vision, your belief, is very helpful to mine.

I think once taking the above into account you might realise Gods plan is literally existing. Existing as an expression in infinite forms, across infinite universes (for multi-verse theorists) and in infinite realms. Giving every last thing that exists its own unique reflection of the reality it exists in.

God's work ethic, or rules of creation in my opinion would be the following...

Light, Life and Love.

For without a single one, would everything fall apart.

Hope I cleared that question up. I do have a tendency to stray from the topic regarding specific questions about God whenever conversing about it, so much to talk about Please do let me know if I didn't answer appropriately. It is a very complex topic as we're dealing with the most complex entity.

Do let me know if there is anything I could clarify further on. Also, this is strictly my opinion based on three things 1) Some scientific fact (atoms etc...) 2) The theories of those who have spent more time and dedication to me finding the answers i.e meditation, psychedelics, OBE etc... and 3) My own thoughts.

My own thoughts that help me explain my beliefs. Rational of course, thoughts that may hold truth.

Your mind is the most vital thing ever. It's the only thing you can ever be sure of truth. The only way you make sense of anything is by your mind converting your thoughts into perception and perception into experience. So at the end of the day you hold your own truths. By this I don't mean thinking of a unicorn dragon battling dinosaur aliens in space makes it true. Stick to what is fact and build upon it.

Using logic and reason you come to your own conclusions. It's how we got this far today.

All the best

Thank you.

[eight bits]

WCF

Entheogenes have a place in medicine.

We weren't discussing medicine (the field of study and practice). The closest we have come to debating therapy was the observation that being poisoned and then sermonized was anecdotally effective, maybe even as effective as being sermonized without being poisoned first.

The topic is "Is God all in the mind?" The subthread on drug abuse started with another poster's answer to the topic question. In other words, we have been discussing drugs as a claimed tool for answering a religious question. That is not medicine (the field of study and practice). It is experimental ontology, or whatever phrase to hide the ball lest drug abuse be called what it is.

Your classification of it as a toxic poison is far to extreem.

It is not "my" classification. The conversation began with a specific chemical, DMT, which is a neurotoxin, hence a toxin, hence a posion, and so finally, in your phrase a "toxic poison." The conversation continued to include potions containing DMT, such as ayahuasca, being provided by shamans to other people. Eventually, of course, we abstracted away from the chemistry and focused on the practice of shamanic experimental ontology as such.

Somewhere along the way, I mentioned the maxim "The dose makes the poison." This refers to the usual circumstance that the same substance might injure, pass harmlessly or effect cures depending on how it is used (including, but not only, differences in dose). Dose-response will vary from one chemical to the next, and one potion to the next.

However, regardless of composition, we have been discussing the use of potions in doses that impede perception and otherwise confuse and disorder cognition, which are toxic effects and are the intended effects of administering the substance. It is entirely to fair to speak of "poison" in that context; which in no way denies that used differently, the same ingredients might be used to compound genuine therapies.

My orginal point was that ASC are the fundamental base for most religions and spirituality. If think it stands.

What stands is that consciousness, by its unmolested nature, can achieve states which are conducive to reliable ontological insight. Those states may be "altered" in the sense that we are not always well-placed to reflect reliably on ontological problems. Consciousness spontaneously vaires in quality, as we have both already agreed.. The controversy is whether being "altered" in some other senses is or is not conducive to reliable cognition.

Other ancestral technologies have been displaced by the progress of knowledge and technique. It is not at all obvious that toxic experimental ontology will not eventually join knapping flint and thatched roofing. It already has, to a great extent.

There are very few deaths or serious problems associated with entheogens.

I didn't say there weren't, nor did I say how many deaths or other serious problems would be negligible. What I objected to was the fostering of unnecessary dependence on substance and supplier, with a phoney cover story that chemically induced trauma fosters ontological insight.

It is somewhat ironic that this needs to be said repeatedly in a thread whose OP reports having the same kind of insight (and, so far as any of us know, with the identical degree of reliability) by looking at a cloud and thinking about it. To which, I gather, some would express regret that his eyes were functioning normally and that his capacity for thoughtful reflection was unperturbed.

[White Crane Feather]

Abrahamic Traditions 2,000 years ago do not matter, as these practices are forgotten and only exist verbally. That is the point, we have moved on, religion did it's job, but we can do better now.

I am sure from a religious point of view it appears so, to my perspective it is just an alternative based on the same ideals illustrating the futility of said practises. In that light, I see it as an example.

I do not agree, The best minds on the planet are atheist.

Why is science banned form approaching God, if it is not that it can call him out?

No, it is not at all silent on the issue, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, Penn Jilette and Richard Dawkins are very outspoken on the subject.

Not outside of the standard meme, medicine tells us what these drugs actually do to you these days now that we can watch a brain expending energy as it works.

No they do not, they are the polar opposites, Atheists insist on evidence, whereas religious people tell you to consult your inner self and simple have faith. Verbal assurances are not worth anything at all. An atheist will say "here is the answer" a religious person will tell you to talk to God. Chalk and Cheese.

Their minds are not better than anyone else's, they simply are more famous. Anyone claiming that science has anything to say about spirituality is not speaking as a scientist. The existance of God or not is not a scientific question. Scientific questions must be falsifiable. Since the existance of a God would be beyond falsifiable it falls into the realm of philosophy. Anytime a scientist says there is not God they are not speaking as a scientist, they are speaking as a philosopher. The sheer fact is that if there is God, it will be God that decides if there is scientific evidence of its existance or not. You know being a supreme being and all I think it could put smart a few stuffy scientists. There are many great minds that are spiritual/religious. Picking at choosing famous scientists that fit the bill is confirmation bias on your part. Look I can do it too. So much for scientific thinking ehhh?

Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant

Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic

Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran

Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist

Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)

Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican

Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian

Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim

Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker

Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)

Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

White Crane Feather BA Economics, AA business admin, AA liberal arts Agnostic Theist

I'll have to disagree with you. When I see a person pushing their philosophy I tend to lump them into the same catagory. Hard atheists have adopted a philosophy that is both Un falsifiable, and unprovable. They operate by and have restricted themselves to the doctrin of logical positivism which in itself is full of problems. I'm not saying atheists are not right when it comes to many assertions that are indeed falsifiable. These are always about religious narritives themselves. Nohas flood, young earth creationism, etc etc., but the question of God or spirituality is a philosophical one not a scientific one. Anyone telling you different doesn't understand the way the scientific method works.

Edited January 13, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[White Crane Feather]

WCF

We weren't discussing medicine (the field of study and practice). The closest we have come to debating therapy was the observation that being poisoned and then sermonized was anecdotally effective, maybe even as effective as being sermonized without being poisoned first.

The topic is "Is God all in the mind?" The subthread on drug abuse started with another poster's answer to the topic question. In other words, we have been discussing drugs as a claimed tool for answering a religious question. That is not medicine (the field of study and practice). It is experimental ontology, or whatever phrase to hide the ball lest drug abuse be called what it is.

It is not "my" classification. The conversation began with a specific chemical, DMT, which is a neurotoxin, hence a toxin, hence a posion, and so finally, in your phrase a "toxic poison." The conversation continued to include potions containing DMT, such as ayahuasca, being provided by shamans to other people. Eventually, of course, we abstracted away from the chemistry and focused on the practice of shamanic experimental ontology as such.

Somewhere along the way, I mentioned the maxim "The dose makes the poison." This refers to the usual circumstance that the same substance might injure, pass harmlessly or effect cures depending on how it is used (including, but not only, differences in dose). Dose-response will vary from one chemical to the next, and one potion to the next.

However, regardless of composition, we have been discussing the use of potions in doses that impede perception and otherwise confuse and disorder cognition, which are toxic effects and are the intended effects of administering the substance. It is entirely to fair to speak of "poison" in that context; which in no way denies that used differently, the same ingredients might be used to compound genuine therapies.

What stands is that consciousness, by its unmolested nature, can achieve states which are conducive to reliable ontological insight. Those states may be "altered" in the sense that we are not always well-placed to reflect reliably on ontological problems. Consciousness spontaneously vaires in quality, as we have both already agreed.. The controversy is whether being "altered" in some other senses is or is not conducive to reliable cognition.

Other ancestral technologies have been displaced by the progress of knowledge and technique. It is not at all obvious that toxic experimental ontology will not eventually join knapping flint and thatched roofing. It already has, to a great extent.

I didn't say there weren't, nor did I say how many deaths or other serious problems would be negligible. What I objected to was the fostering of unnecessary dependence on substance and supplier, with a phoney cover story that chemically induced trauma fosters ontological insight.

It is somewhat ironic that this needs to be said repeatedly in a thread whose OP reports having the same kind of insight (and, so far as any of us know, with the identical degree of reliability) by looking at a cloud and thinking about it. To which, I gather, some would express regret that his eyes were functioning normally and that his capacity for thoughtful reflection was unperturbed.

I think actually entheogens will come full circle and back into study. They are doing that now. Then use did not fall away do to irrelevance or modern progress. In western developed countries there is heavy religious influence that does not agree with entheogenic practice. In fact some ignorant attitudes consider it evil devil worship. It became obscure until more recent times. In Fact I would hypothesize that the emergencies of questioning religions more actually has lead to the willingness of people to persue other methods of spirituality. Scienctists and doctors are now picking it back up again becuse of a more relaxed attitude about it from government. For a long while there it was near impossible for scientists to get permission to study it. I don't think the Entheogen is going anywhere soon. Good scientists will disect it and figure out why Peruvian shaman have more dopamine receptors than others, why people give up vices, how different areas of the brain can be enhanced, and why it's been such a powerful force in humanity. Governments however have insentives to keep it away from the masses. People that come back from entheogenic experiences often don't see reasoning in working 9-5 for 30 plus years, or dedicating ones life to a corporation. Not so good for productivity. Most entheogens create a closeness with nature in people that they then become tree huggers of sorts aswell.

You know eight bits. No one is dependent on entheogens. They are not physically adictive. And of course somone is going to have to supply a demand. I'm not sure why that is so objectionable. Not everyone can acheive ASC by themselves, and if they want to have that experience to see for themselves, they will need a guide or at least it's much better to have one. I reject guruship aswell, and indeed like in other forms of spirituality some do take on roles like that, but most don't.

Anyway good day my friend. Got to get the boys up for breakfast.

Edited January 13, 2015 by White Crane Feather

[danielost]

There will be challenges, but that does not mean we have to sit and guess wild conclusions, science can drill down and give us the answers we seek, philosophy cannot do that, it can only offer us how many alternates one can come up with. As such, new challenges will be wrestled down by the best minds in science, we do not have to wonder, we can move right onto investigation and get that answer.

Sorry, I seem to have misread your post, I thought it was asking how determine that God does not exist.

There is no "beyond the boundaries of science" Science is like the Universe, if you throw a spear 50 meters beyond the limit of the universe, the Universe is now 50 meters bigger. People who have good position in religious circles will say this to protect their place, but can you give me one good reason as to why religion is beyond the boundaries of science? How is that not saying "I have no answers and do not ask me"?

We have an honest answer from science, we can say how the Universe was formed, and no, you do not have to be there, but we do have solid sources of evidence to support that conclusion but what do you have on God? A man made and dictated concept.

LINK - Stephen Hawking makes it clear: There is no God

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

I am honestly not sure how you feel that supports the idea of an omnipotent being? Some of these gods were snakes, some creatures that are a hybrid of creatures on earth, they performed different functions, and many societies had a God for everything, there was even a Roman God of Cupboards!! We now know Zeus did not hurl lightning bolts, and Thor did not exist using a mighty hammer to create thunder, so what makes an Abrahamic God more likely to be real than the ones we used to have?

but, there are bounds in science. you have to know what questions to ask before you can understand them. jesus said the way to god was easy for the idiot to understand and impossible for the wise. paraphrased.

[Occult1]

I am honestly not sure how you feel that supports the idea of an omnipotent being? Some of these gods were snakes, some creatures that are a hybrid of creatures on earth, they performed different functions, and many societies had a God for everything, there was even a Roman God of Cupboards!! We now know Zeus did not hurl lightning bolts, and Thor did not exist using a mighty hammer to create thunder, so what makes an Abrahamic God more likely to be real than the ones we used to have?

I don't know about an 'omnipotent being'. I would venture to say that isn't a prerequisite for a metaphysical progenitor to set forth the birth of our Universe. The God theory does make much more sens to me than the belief that nothingness and pointlessness is the ultimate origin, which it must be said is based on reductionistic assumptions. Here's 4 characteristics that, in my view, are necessery:

1. Sufficient power to set the forth the forces of which our Universe is composed.

2. Sufficient intelligence to set forth the governing dynamics guiding those forces into the states which we observe.

3. Rationality, for the laws of physics can be understood and the probability of cosmic events predicted, consistant in the application of those governing dynamics.

4. A rational motivation, a purpose to create and become the Universe.

These characterisitcs comes from the PanDeistic viewpoint, which can be found here:

Not sure why you need to go back thousands of years in time to argue against the God theory though. Surely you know that Atheism existed in a rudimentary form since the sixth century BCE or so? With sufficiant knowledge civilizations evolve, and so are our definitions and worldviews.

Edited January 13, 2015 by sam_comm

[eight bits]

WCF

You know eight bits. No one is dependent on entheogens.

Like nicotine, for example? Nicotine has been used in preparations made by shamans for entheogenic effect. The history of nicotine addiction, and the agonizing slowness in scientists' recognizing its physical bases, may be instructive here. You have just told me that entheogen research has been discouraged from time to time, and that surely was the case with the entheogen nicotine, especially concerning its addictiveness.

In actual fact, nicotine addiction was until recently pandemic in, among other places, "western developed countries," and even today remains a widespread and prominent public health concern. Somebody, WCF, is dependent on an entheogen.

I'm not sure why that is so objectionable.

The phoney cover story is the nub of my objection. I don't favor banning the sale of cigarettes to adults, for example. I do favor laws that say that cigarettes cannot be advertised by using statements from medical doctors that smoking is good for you. Such ads once were used.

Anyway good day my friend. Got to get the boys up for breakfast.

God's work, friend.

[+Paranoid Android]

What amazes me is the sheer number of people (based on my observation of folk in this thread, and others like it) who think and (more importantly) act like science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. And while the common perception brought up here is of the typical creationist religious believer who ignores the science of evolution at the expense of their faith in God, the fact is that there are just as many atheists who treat religion and science as mutually exclusive concepts. The truth is that (as has been mentioned several times already) science is unable to comment one way or the other on the issue, but atheists who hold science in such high regard are just as blind (I'm trying to find a less prejudicial term, but "blind" fits, so I'll stick with it) as their creationist cousins who dismiss science.

To me, the fields of science and religion are addressing fundamentally different questions of life, the universe, and everything. The existence of one neither proves nor disproves the existence of the other.

Sorry, considering the tone of the posts in the past few pages (and I've been in Sydney without wifi internet for a week now, so I'm only just now adding my thoughts) I just felt I needed to add that into the discussion.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[+Hammerclaw]

We believers always make accommodations for scientific truths so they don't hinder in any way the spiritual aspects of our religious lives. I'm not a Biblical literalist and I think that--while every word in the Bible has it's significance, not all of them can be taken at face value. I've always been amused by people preaching the infallibility of the Holy Scriptures from Bibles with center columns of corrections. God is infallible, but the Bible needs to be read with Him looking over one's shoulder. I worship God, not the Bible. I have no particular reverence for the vast corpus of scientific knowledge either, because that story isn't finished yet, and what we have of it is still subject to revision. Science is all about knowledge and religion is about belief and in my life, they are not mutually incompatible, and there's room enough for both.

[+Liquid Gardens]

What amazes me is the sheer number of people (based on my observation of folk in this thread, and others like it) who think and (more importantly) act like science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. And while the common perception brought up here is of the typical creationist religious believer who ignores the science of evolution at the expense of their faith in God, the fact is that there are just as many atheists who treat religion and science as mutually exclusive concepts.

Hi PA,

I have to disagree, as I usually do when 'just as bad' comparisons are made between theists and atheists. I'm sure it happens with some atheists, but most don't argue that science and religion are exclusive without any qualification. Obviously there have been quite a number of specific religious beliefs (creationism, demon-caused diseases, etc) about the world that have had to retreat in the face of better scientific answers (and afaik, the reverse has never happened). The method used to arrive at a lot of your religious beliefs is pretty much mutually exclusive of that used by science; to you, faith has some kind of legitimacy, in science faith is rightly called cheating.

The truth is that (as has been mentioned several times already) science is unable to comment one way or the other on the issue, but atheists who hold science in such high regard are just as blind (I'm trying to find a less prejudicial term, but "blind" fits, so I'll stick with it) as their creationist cousins who dismiss science.

Of course they are not 'just as blind', I find that ridiculous. Science is deservedly held in high regard because of the results it can demonstrate, we shouldn't even need to go into the vast amount of evidence (as we communicate in a science-derived method that would probably be deemed 'miraculous' a millennia ago) that supports science. Creationism has no results to show, no real research to conduct, and doesn't have the evidence to back it up. How exactly are people who esteem science based 'truths', based on the vast amount of progress that has been made by what science delivers, 'just as blind' as those who dismiss science. If you're just saying by 'high regard' you mean 'accept without questioning because it's been labeled 'scientific'', I'm sure that happens to a minor extent but I think is largely a strawman; I think everyone knows of examples where science (supposedly) asserted something that turned out not to be correct later.

As far as science commenting on religion, I disagree that it is and must remain silent, at least on objective empirical questions. At the least, science can 'comment' that most religious beliefs have almost no evidence to examine or study, which puts it in the same bucket as leprechauns and the astral realm and, to be fair, string theory (from what little I understand of that). Regardless, that isn't a point in religion's favor; outside of subjective evaluations, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that I believe is true that science just can't study due to lack of evidence.

To me, the fields of science and religion are addressing fundamentally different questions of life, the universe, and everything.

Only for subjective questions like those concerning the 'meaning' of it all, how to be the 'best', most fulfilled person you can be, etc. I don't think, 'God exists' or 'Jesus rose from the dead' or 'there is an afterlife' and other similar questions are fundamentally different at all from those science regularly addresses.

[Mr Walker]

Of course science (and more importantly, scientific method and thinking) is critical, both in the condition of present humanity, and in its evolution forward, but anyone who thinks science can "explain" anything, or is the basis of everything important in life is missing critical truths. I wouldn't say they were a fool, but they are ignorant of those truths. Science does not provide us with human moralities or ethics, although scientific thinking can help in our formation of these. For example, science does not explain why human life is more important than non human life. It does not tell us whether abortion is an ethical procedure or not. It does not meet all our human needs, or offer comfort (or even structure) for our deepest psychological desires/needs. Science does not provide us with the rituals essential in birth, maturity, and death during a human life. It does not give us music, art poetry or song, although it might explain our need for, and connection to, these things.

Ps the "subjective things" referred to by liquid gardens are the most significant and critical things to humanity they are all that separate us from non self aware beings, and everything which make us human. HUMans can live , if forced to without science, but without those subjective things they will cease to be human and might as well be dead.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

Of course science (and more importantly, scientific method and thinking) is critical, both in the condition of present humanity, and in its evolution forward, but anyone who thinks science can "explain" anything, or is the basis of everything important in life is missing critical truths. I wouldn't say they were a fool, but they are ignorant of those truths.

Science does 'explain' lots of things, at least as well as anything can be explained. I don't know a single person who says that science is the basis of everything important in life.

[Mr Walker]

The reason why I put explain in parentheses was that I meant explain, philosophically, not scientifically. Science describes how things work, but does not explain many other things. It is simple given enough knowledge to explain the mechanics of something scientifically but impossible to explain many products of human thought. TAke love for example. MAny people say it is scientifically explainable through chemicals or evolved traits. Butt that tis not "love". Science cannot explain the human form of love resulting from our ability to; conceptualise, think symbolically, and translate emotions into constructed values and principles. It can say how we do this but not why we do so. Science cannot explain why my wife wants a green kitchen or why one piece of art or music is loved by someone and hated by another. Science cannot put a value on a human life, except statistically. eg its economic/productive value, or the value of its constituent parts. And yet the value of a human life, and the comparative value of different human lives, underpins/is intrinsic to, all that it means to be human.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Mr Walker

[psyche101]

From the University of Carlifornia ''Understanding Science, How Science Really Works'' webpage:

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations:

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Source: http://undsci.berkel...hatisscience_12

As we are part of nature, it is only logical to recognize that science, a rational methodology to study the physical world using observation and experimentation, would not be of much help to objectively acquire evidence of that which is beyond nature, and so beyond human senses, the framework of our reality. I would add that there is a risk for scientism to become a sort of religion itself by preaching all sort of assumptions regarding a 'limitless scope of Science', as with the 'limitless scope of God' of certain believers, the very thing you seek to avoid.

LOL!! That is not what that means!! Berley is an awesome place, but perhaps they assumed people to be a bit more objective when reading that page. It would seem they have not taken into account the fact that most religious people are going to regard religion as fact. It means the same thing as the quote I offered earlier from Hawking.

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Perhaps this link explains it a little clearer?

There are a lot of arguments claiming that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Many of these can be summed up in a theme elaborated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion have mutually exclusive spheres of authority, or as he called them, "nonoverlapping magisteria." The problem with this approach is that science and religion can't agree on the boundaries and therefore, even if the magisteria don't overlap in reality, they do in practice. More fundamentally, the division assumes a distinction between a world of fact (the domain of science) and a world of subjective belief (religion), but no religion regards its dogmas as subjective belief. Every religion regards its dogmas as objective, demonstrable facts.

LINK - Why Science Cannot Address the Existence of God

It is trying to prove a negative, that is not going to happen. How do you test something for veracity when the holders insist it is fact?

That is why science makes religion redundant, it does not replace it, it is a new thing and has an entirely different approach to teaching. You seem to find Nature and the Concept of God related, they are not, one exists due to processes of the Universe, we made the other one up.

Scientism is not a threat, science itself by it's very nature distances itself from it, there are no absolutes in science, so by theory, it has to allow for belief to be possible, even if that odd is infinitesimally small, it's being polite, it does not mean the tale of Heaven is actually true. In the same way people think fairies exist, can you prove that no creature akin to a fairy in the Universe exists across all time? No, but Fairies out of pop culture are entirely a human construct. Not much science can do about that either, but say, there is no need for them to exist, yet science will not say, they cannot exist.

You have the same problem most people ingrained with religion do, you look at science as an alternative, or the great evil trying to extinguish your faith, it is not. It is the simple truth trying to offer you something - more knowledge and a better understanding of what which be around you. Nature provides us with science, man provided God.

We can say at which point the Universe was formed but not why. The question of origin beyond this incredibly small singularity - the primary element that we can account for - is left unanswered. There are theories, conjectures but no proof whatsoever to support any of them.

Matthew Francis of BBC science puts the finger on it:

''If eternal inflation is correct, then the Big Bang is the origin of our pocket universe, but not the beginning of the whole Universe, which may have begun much earlier. The evidence for multiverses will be indirect at best, even with confirmation of inflation from Planck or other observations. In other words, eternal inflation could answer the question of what preceded the Big Bang, but still leave the question of ultimate origin out of reach.''

Source: http://www.bbc.com/f...re-the-big-bang

You can say that 'nothing' or 'pointlessness' is the ultimate origin but that doesn't answer anything more than the God theory, at least the later add meaning and purpose to the whole process, which is a compelling and rational notion especially when looking at the sheer complexity and beauty of the cosmos. Without proof to support that kind of claims, it remains in the realm of human beliefs though, God or not.

For goodness sakes, we have not even had the big bang worked out for 100 years yet!! This is something of a larger challenge that we are gathering data on, and again, no need for God, this is where Hawking is coming from, String (which I call "string", not "String Theory) predicts many Universes, and most of which are uninhabitable by any standard. We have several models, we are trying to work out which is the most likely. Brian Greene is probably the best source for this, a great way for any layman such as myself to get a decent understanding of these hypotheses is his series The Fabric of the Cosmos. It's ten years old, but still rather current as far as string goes.

Still no need for God to step in yet, realms that are currently beyond our understanding do not require a higher power to explain them. Science does that too, and has been for a very long time. We need more time is all as it is a big question and the answer to what existed before everything existed may even take new understandings for concepts we do not fathom yet, but as processes, not God. God is man made.

The setting forth of the Universe, or Multiverse by a metaphysical progenitor, a 'God' or 'Creator' doesn't need the beliefs in miracles or religions for that matter. Although, it may not be impossible - in my humble opinion - that 'miracles' which seem to defy scientific explanations as well as any other spiritual experiences are manifestations of 'God', who became the Universe and uncounsciously underlies it.

What miracles? Some defy science? Or do some reject scientific explanation? Not the same thing you know.

The universe was not "set forth" it is, and has become what it is by way of interaction of different types of substances, many of which we are trying to fathom with things like the Hadron Collider. I mean we are at the chicken and the egg, did God create the Universe or did the Universe have to exist (in some form we do not yet fully understand) for God to create it? Matter always existed and interaction created different ways for that matter to gather and be disseminated. There was no magical being floating in nothingness who clapped his hands together to create the heavens and the earth. That was gravity.

[+Hammerclaw]

LOL!! That is not what that means!! Berley is an awesome place, but perhaps they assumed people to be a bit more objective when reading that page. It would seem they have not taken into account the fact that most religious people are going to regard religion as fact. It means the same thing as the quote I offered earlier from Hawking.

"Religion believes in miracles, but these aren't compatible with science."

Perhaps this link explains it a little clearer?

There are a lot of arguments claiming that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Many of these can be summed up in a theme elaborated by Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion have mutually exclusive spheres of authority, or as he called them, "nonoverlapping magisteria." The problem with this approach is that science and religion can't agree on the boundaries and therefore, even if the magisteria don't overlap in reality, they do in practice. More fundamentally, the division assumes a distinction between a world of fact (the domain of science) and a world of subjective belief (religion), but no religion regards its dogmas as subjective belief. Every religion regards its dogmas as objective, demonstrable facts.

LINK - Why Science Cannot Address the Existence of God

It is trying to prove a negative, that is not going to happen. How do you test something for veracity when the holders insist it is fact?

That is why science makes religion redundant, it does not replace it, it is a new thing and has an entirely different approach to teaching. You seem to find Nature and the Concept of God related, they are not, one exists due to processes of the Universe, we made the other one up.

Scientism is not a threat, science itself by it's very nature distances itself from it, there are no absolutes in science, so by theory, it has to allow for belief to be possible, even if that odd is infinitesimally small, it's being polite, it does not mean the tale of Heaven is actually true. In the same way people think fairies exist, can you prove that no creature akin to a fairy in the Universe exists across all time? No, but Fairies out of pop culture areentirely a human construct. Not much science can do about that either, but say, there is no need for them to exist, yet science will not say, they cannot exist.

You have the same problem most people ingrained with religion do, you look at science as an alternative, or the great evil trying to extinguish your faith, it is not. It is the simple truth trying to offer you something - more knowledge and a better understanding of what which be around you. Nature provides us with science, man provided God.

For goodness sakes, we have not even had the big bang worked out for 100 years yet!! This is something of a larger challenge that we are gathering data on, and again, no need for God, this is where Hawking is coming from, String (which I call "string", not "String Theory) predicts many Universes, and most of which are uninhabitable by any standard. We have several models, we are trying to work out which is the most likely. Brian Greene is probably the best source for this, a great way for any layman such as myself to get a decent understanding of these hypotheses is his series The Fabric of the Cosmos. It's ten years old, but still rather current as far as string goes.

Still no need for God to step in yet, realms that are currently beyond our understanding do not require a higher power to explain them. Science does that too, and has been for a very long time. We need more time is all as it is a big question and the answer to what existed before everything existed may even take new understandings for concepts we do not fathom yet, but as processes, not God. God is man made.

What miracles? Some defy science? Or do some reject scientific explanation? Not the same thing you know.

The universe was not "set forth" it is, and has become what it is by way of interaction of different types of substances, many of which we are trying to fathom with things like the Hadron Collider. I mean we are at the chicken and the egg, did God create the Universe or did the Universe have to exist (in some form we do not yet fully understand) for God to create it? Matter always existed and interaction created different ways for that matter to gather and be disseminated. There was no magical being floating in nothingness who clapped his hands together to create the heavens and the earth. That was gravity.

We believe God created gravity and all those other things too. Look, we all accept the fact that you are an Atheist. Fine. Throwing up walls of text about it preaching it won't win you any converts here. Science is your religion and you take it on faith the same way believers do their religion. They swear by God and you swear by the scientific method and neither of you could write down the proofs of what you believe much less understand most of it if you tried. Get over it.

[+Hammerclaw]

Science does 'explain' lots of things, at least as well as anything can be explained. I don't know a single person who says that science is the basis of everything important in life.

I can think of at least one.

[travelnjones]

I have always felt nothing was knowable that wasn't your mind.

Solipsism (ⁱ/ˈsɒlɨpsɪzəm/; from Latin solus, meaning "alone", and ipse, meaning "self")^[1] is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind. As a metaphysical position, solipsism goes further to the conclusion that the world and other minds do not exist.

[psyche101]

Their minds are not better than anyone else's, they simply are more famous.

Why do you think they are famous?

Because their minds are better than most. That is their claim to fame.

Anyone claiming that science has anything to say about spirituality is not speaking as a scientist.

That is right, because spirituality is superstition, it's like Science investigating Winnie The Pooh or Leprechauns.

The existance of God or not is not a scientific question.

No, it is superstition.

Scientific questions must be falsifiable.

Everything should be if claimed as real.

Since the existance of a God would be beyond falsifiable it falls into the realm of philosophy.

You mean man made God up so only man can direct Gods existence don't you?

Science overrides philosophy too. It does not ponder the questions, it drill down into them.

Anytime a scientist says there is not God they are not speaking as a scientist, they are speaking as a philosopher.

I would say that is why they do not take that final step, they say there is no need for God to exist for everything in the Universe, and the Universe itself to exist, it says God is redundant. We do not need him to explain things anymore, the tale of creating the heavens and the earth is wrong, we have better information. We can stop making stuff up, and learn by way of observation.

The sheer fact is that if there is God, it will be God that decides if there is scientific evidence of its existance or not.

LOL, that is such poppycock!!

No, Science just does what it does, we do not direct it, natural processes do. God has no say there, science is brutally honest and will kill God if God challenges it. God is man made, not the omnipotent being man has brainwashed generations to think he is.

You know being a supreme being and all I think it could put smart a few stuffy scientists. There are many great minds that are spiritual/religious.

And yet the scientist are the ones putting God out of a Job. The religious protest this all day long, but cannot refute a single fact. Science however just keeps growing it's knowledge each and every second.

Picking at choosing famous scientists that fit the bill is confirmation bias on your part. Look I can do it too. So much for scientific thinking ehhh?

Max Planck Nobel Laureate in Physics Protestant

Erwin Schrodinger Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic

Werner Heisenberg Nobel Laureate in Physics Lutheran

Robert Millikan Nobel Laureate in Physics probably Congregationalist

Charles Hard Townes Nobel Laureate in Physics United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)

Arthur Schawlow Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William D. Phillips Nobel Laureate in Physics Methodist

William H. Bragg Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Guglielmo Marconi Nobel Laureate in Physics Catholic and Anglican

Arthur Compton Nobel Laureate in Physics Presbyterian

Arno Penzias Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Nevill Mott Nobel Laureate in Physics Anglican

Isidor Isaac Rabi Nobel Laureate in Physics Jewish

Abdus Salam Nobel Laureate in Physics Muslim

Antony Hewish Nobel Laureate in Physics Christian (denomination?)

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr. Nobel Laureate in Physics Quaker

Alexis Carrel Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

John Eccles Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Joseph Murray Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Catholic

Ernst Chain Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

George Wald Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Jewish

Ronald Ross Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology Christian (denomination?)

Derek Barton Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

Christian Anfinsen Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Walter Kohn Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Jewish

Richard Smalley Nobel Laureate in Chemistry Christian (denomination?)

White Crane Feather BA Economics, AA business admin, AA liberal arts Agnostic Theist

That is not scientific thinking, that is an appeal to authority, which is why you posted so many when I was happy to provide a few simple and illustrative examples. However, lets actually have a look at those examples shall we? I wont be wasting my time with every name on that list so I shall pick the first two.

Max Planck

Six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe "in a personal God, let alone a Christian God."

Erwin Schrödinger

Catholic by birth default to his father, his mother was Lutheran. . Despite being raised in a religious household, he called himself an atheist. However, he had strong interests in Eastern religions, pantheism and used religious symbolism in his works. He also believed his scientific work was an approach to the godhead, albeit in a metaphorical sense.

Mate, I do feel you need to look a bit deeper before offering these sacrificial cows. These men are not the believers in God that you make them out to be.

Not only that, but I feel it is a bit underhanded of you to mostly pick names that were pioneers, the men who took us out of the shadows of religion, and took the first steps that freed these shackles of superstition, the men you speak of were brought up to completely believe that Adam and Eve were our ancestors, and our greatest grandmother was made from grandads rib.

I think what you call "philosophy is actually just asking people to step back, and accept silly excuses when the tall tale of a God goes awry.

I'll have to disagree with you.

I am not surprised one bit, you have invested a great deal of your life and your families life into believing we have spirits inside of us that carry in when we are dead. You are not even going to consider that you might be wrong for some ADD anonymous poster on the Internet. This is that high ground that religious people stand upon, which I feel is rather falsifiable. Which I find somewhat amusing, particular when you feel religious people have some sort of secret knowledge. They do not, they have faith, it is not the same thing as knowledge at all.

When I see a person pushing their philosophy I tend to lump them into the same catagory.

Science is not philosophical, it gets right to the point.

Hard atheists have adopted a philosophy that is both Un falsifiable, and unprovable.

What philosophy? As far as I know, they only philosophy atheists have is to share factual knowledge and rationalise superstition. And I do not know if that can be described as "philosophy"

They operate by and have restricted themselves to the doctrin of logical positivism which in itself is full of problems.

What is wrong with a stated principle?

What problems are you speaking of? Surely not the elusive nature of imagination? Science allows God to exist, it is just that there is no reason for him to exist. As such, God is redundant.

I'm not saying atheists are not right when it comes to many assertions that are indeed falsifiable. These are always about religious narritives themselves. Nohas flood, young earth creationism, etc etc., but the question of God or spirituality is a philosophical one not a scientific one. Anyone telling you different doesn't understand the way the scientific method works.

All that sounds like is "I have no answers, so do not ask me, I will refer you to God" which is not an answer, it is avoiding the question. Science has proven the written word of God to be wrong, yet you claim now that the written word is proven wrong, you shift position to a spiritual realm.No doubt should science prove that 100% to be bunkum, religious people will have some other poor excuse. If you do not have an answer, "God will provide" does not suffice, you need to be able to accept the very fact that you have no answer, but wish to hold onto your faith. To be religious is to refuse to be brutally honest with yourself when the hard questions come up. Heck, even when the easy ones like the veracity of the Bible come up.

Edited January 14, 2015 by psyche101

[+Paranoid Android]

Hi PA,

I have to disagree, as I usually do when 'just as bad' comparisons are made between theists and atheists. I'm sure it happens with some atheists, but most don't argue that science and religion are exclusive without any qualification.

I can name at least two who have posted in the last two pages of this thread who have done just exactly that (and that's just from memory). And you did note that "most" don't argue this, so having only two atheists among all those who have posted is perhaps not many. But in that same period of time, only one creationist has made a post in this same time period of this thread, so my comment that just as many atheists see religion and science as exclusive is not wrong at all.

Obviously there have been quite a number of specific religious beliefs (creationism, demon-caused diseases, etc) about the world that have had to retreat in the face of better scientific answers (and afaik, the reverse has never happened). The method used to arrive at a lot of your religious beliefs is pretty much mutually exclusive of that used by science; to you, faith has some kind of legitimacy, in science faith is rightly called cheating.

Of course they are not 'just as blind', I find that ridiculous. Science is deservedly held in high regard because of the results it can demonstrate, we shouldn't even need to go into the vast amount of evidence (as we communicate in a science-derived method that would probably be deemed 'miraculous' a millennia ago) that supports science. Creationism has no results to show, no real research to conduct, and doesn't have the evidence to back it up. How exactly are people who esteem science based 'truths', based on the vast amount of progress that has been made by what science delivers, 'just as blind' as those who dismiss science. If you're just saying by 'high regard' you mean 'accept without questioning because it's been labeled 'scientific'', I'm sure that happens to a minor extent but I think is largely a strawman; I think everyone knows of examples where science (supposedly) asserted something that turned out not to be correct later.

Just to be clear, I'm not making my comments in the sense that you seem to be interpreting it - as if esteeming scientific truth is just as blind as esteeming religious truth (and just to cover myself, in using this statement I am not arguing that esteeming religious truth is blind either, though if it directly contradicts science, then yes it would). What I am saying is that those who insist that science and faith cannot walk hand in hand together are equally blind on the matter, regardless of which side of the religious/non-religious fence they happen to be sitting on. I don't see why the two have to be taken as an either/or proposition. I'll take both science and religion, and happily do so at that

As far as science commenting on religion, I disagree that it is and must remain silent, at least on objective empirical questions. At the least, science can 'comment' that most religious beliefs have almost no evidence to examine or study, which puts it in the same bucket as leprechauns and the astral realm and, to be fair, string theory (from what little I understand of that). Regardless, that isn't a point in religion's favor; outside of subjective evaluations, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything that I believe is true that science just can't study due to lack of evidence.

Only for subjective questions like those concerning the 'meaning' of it all, how to be the 'best', most fulfilled person you can be, etc. I don't think, 'God exists' or 'Jesus rose from the dead' or 'there is an afterlife' and other similar questions are fundamentally different at all from those science regularly addresses.

And this was my reference - faith asks the questions of the meaning of life, why we exist, who are we, that kind of thing? Science asks the material questions - what are we made of, what processes brought about life as we know it, how does the world "tick"?

But to be clear, of the three examples you cited, only the second one ("Jesus rose from the dead") is a matter of science, the questions of "God exists" or "there is an afterlife" are also unanswerable by science. And on the matter of Jesus' resurrection it's already clear I take that as a matter of faith.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Paranoid Android

[Careful_perspective]

What amazes me is the sheer number of people (based on my observation of folk in this thread, and others like it) who think and (more importantly) act like science and religion are mutually exclusive concepts. And while the common perception brought up here is of the typical creationist religious believer who ignores the science of evolution at the expense of their faith in God, the fact is that there are just as many atheists who treat religion and science as mutually exclusive concepts. The truth is that (as has been mentioned several times already) science is unable to comment one way or the other on the issue, but atheists who hold science in such high regard are just as blind (I'm trying to find a less prejudicial term, but "blind" fits, so I'll stick with it) as their creationist cousins who dismiss science.

To me, the fields of science and religion are addressing fundamentally different questions of life, the universe, and everything. The existence of one neither proves nor disproves the existence of the other.

Sorry, considering the tone of the posts in the past few pages (and I've been in Sydney without wifi internet for a week now, so I'm only just now adding my thoughts) I just felt I needed to add that into the discussion.

Yes! This makes so much sense to me. I am Christian, however, I still accept and appreciate science. I do not take the bible as my ultimate guide to life. Rather, I prefer to take the important lessons it teaches to make my life have more meaning and encourage me to be a better person.

[Occult1]

It is trying to prove a negative, that is not going to happen. How do you test something for veracity when the holders insist it is fact?

The atheistic belief faces the same issue. If you state that 'there is no God or no 'cause', you are making a claim. If that claim isn't supported by evidence and not merely assumptions then it still belong in the realm of human beliefs. You can't escape it. The reality is that we don't really know, we can't be sure and anyone telling you otherwise is either a fundamentalist or suffer from intellectual dishonesty.

A fact remain: we don't have all the answers. What existed before the big bang occurred? Why did this initial singularity came out of 'nowhere's land' to burst and become our Universe and it's physical laws that we are observing and measuring? Even if you throw a Multiverse model into the arena (which is not a proven concept and may possibly offer only circumstantial evidence at best) the question of ultimate origin beyond these networks of Universes is still up in the air. Why should they even exist in the first place? You are only postponing the inevitable question or avoiding it altogether. Atheist/Physicalist preachers want us to believe that 'Nothingness' and 'Pointlessness' is the ultimate answer.

You have the same problem most people ingrained with religion do, you look at science as an alternative, or the great evil trying to extinguish your faith, it is not. It is the simple truth trying to offer you something - more knowledge and a better understanding of what which be around you. Nature provides us with science, man provided God.

I am not religious, I don't subscribe to any particular religion, so I can't relate to what you are saying. But no, science is a method, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquire knowledge. A very effective tool. Is it the only possible way to acquire knowledge or insights about our world? I cannot be sure, as a spiritual person I think it's possible that mysticism or spiritual experiences that all sort of people have reported in their lives may be another way to see glimpses into the depth of our world.

Edited January 14, 2015 by sam_comm