Maybe God is beyond Science?

[Davin]

Usually I only worry about what the truth is, but I have thought about this a lot. I came to the conclusion that this kind of question is useless to me because whether it's true or not, it's not useful. When I started doubting the Christian god, I searched for other answers and this concept was a common theme in several belief systems even with Christians. In the end I decided to change my approach: instead of seeing if a god could fit any where into reality, I started asking why would a god even be considered.

My reasoning goes like this: in reality there is an explanation for everything (even though we may not know the answer, I'm very confident that one exists), so why would I search for something random to explain things than to look at the evidence and see where it leads. So to me the question "maybe god is beyond science?" is the same as "maybe microscopic gremlins are beyond science?" Or any random concept really.

So is god beyond science? I don't care. If god is beyond science then there is no way to be sure it is real, if god isn't then there will be scientific evidence.

[elliebean]

^ This is my approach as well. Your story, as outlined here, pretty much parallels mine.

[Ellainix]

To say God is beyond Science is the equivalent of saying he does not exist.

Science is simply a method of discovering or explaining the truth. If God can't be found in the truth, where does that leave him to be?

[karadan]

Oops, thank you for the clarification. I was obviously in a rush when i posted in this thread the other day.

Horrendous spelling amended. Soz  

[Filanthropod]

I am not a believer myself, but it's just something to think about... if a God exists, maybe he does not present himself through science... then again almost everything in the natural world can be explained by science, and if it's created by him, doesn't that kinda contradict the question?

I'm just asking because a lot of religious people believe he shows himself through signs, coincidences, synchronicity, angels, demons, etc, things there are many different explanations for that aren't necessarily scientific, but often even supernatural occurences can be explained through science and can be proven to not exist as anything 'supernatural'... has anyone else thought about this? Do you believe in signs, but then again signs contradict the atheist notion, as wouldn't there have to be a God to put the signs there ?

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

[Businessocks]

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

[Tank]

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

Would anybody buy a car off this guy? No. Quite right too.

C: I'd like to buy a car please?
S: Certainly sir which one would you like?
C: Where are they?
S: All around you sir!
C: But I can't see them.
S: What a shame sir, they are there sir, I swear it, but you just can't perceive them sir.
C: Backs away slowly and calls the local lunatic asylum.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If there's a God who interacts with reality, those interactions are susceptible to observation, and therefore science, which is only organized observation anyway.

If God doesn't interact with reality at all, what is the difference between this God and no god?

[Davin]

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

So: you have to believe, before you believe so that you'll believe.

[Filanthropod]

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.

[Cite134]

I don't believe that god is beyond science. God is certainly transcendental but it's not beyond science in the sense that it can't be proven scientifially, because I believe that it not only can be but is at all moments being proven. It is self evident, the thing is that perceiving god is a personal matter, some can, some can't.

But here lies a BIG problem for me in believing in god.  Why would god make some of its creation able and open to perceiving it and others not?  Please don't tell me it's a mysterious part of his plan or that it's freewill.  I'll scream, because these arguments fall apart very quickly when talking about traditional religious views of an all-knowing, all-loving god.

Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?

When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.

I've been reading alot of your posts lately..and it seems that you insist on placing many non-believers (in regards to a god), under one umbrella. (For example: "....and I know that it is part of who you are"). You need to stop assuming like you personally know ALL atheists just because we share the same view in regards to a deity. I know many atheists who believe in other superstitions or souls, ghosts etc. Not all atheists are materialists.

On another note, when it comes to God being "above" science. I'm not even sure how to respond to that. Why would anyone believe anything exists that is supposedly "above" reality? Philosophy can be interesting for the sake of discussion, but I do not think that it's as useful as science.The scientific method is very useful because it allows us to understand the world around us, we may not be able to 'prove' that 'ALL' material is all there is CURRENTLY, but that does not mean it cannot be done in the future. It's much more honest to suspend judgement instead of claiming that something exists with no evidence to work off of. I believe it is intellectual honesty that leads atheists to nonbelief. In addition, when it comes to discerning what is 'real' or not real in the observeable universe, I like to refer to Sagan's dragon. :|

[Businessocks]

I asked: Also, let's assume that it's true that some can and some can't.  Why aren't they all perceiving the same thing?


You Said:
When I say that some can and some can't, it's to do with orientation, not ability. We all can. I instinctively know that god exists, I absolutely know it (god that must be frustrating to hear, sorry). And to understand that, let's say there is a god...would knowing that it exists be a casual matter, or would it be something much deeper? It would of course be something much deeper. The reason why atheists hit a brick wall every time they ask theists to prove it, is simply because it cannot be proven in the same way as say proving that someone is standing outside your door. The proof doesn't lie in observation, it lies in interpretation. It's a philosophical matter, and that's why asking for proof is not the right question, because asking for proof is asking to be convinced by means which are irrelevant and impossible. Can you prove that the material is all there is? I wouldn't seriously ask you to do that because I understand that it's your philosophy and I respect it and I know that it is part of who you are. The least significant reason why I wouldn't seriously ask you to prove that the material is all there is is because you can't, so there's no point in asking. It's just how you view things, it's part of your worldview. You don't have a problem with believing in god, because it's not a problem. From experience (not just assumption), atheists always ask for proof, but this is a matter of subjective philosophy. The question of god's existence shouldn't centre around proof as neither of us can prove our side and therefore shouldn't even bother. The dialogue between atheists and theists should be a philosophical one and I'm happy to have such a discussion.



I don't think you answered my question at all.  I didn't ask for proof that god exists.  I said let's assume you're right and some have the right "orientation" (I'm not sure I know what you're getting at there) and others don't...why does this difference exist?  And for those who *are* perceiving, why aren't all of them perceiving the same thing?

See, and as someone pointed out, you did make a BIG assumption about my beliefs, and they are way off.  I actually believe either everything has to be god or nothing is god.  I think we will never know for sure.  But regardless...

You still didn't answer my sincere questions.  I'd really like to hear why all the believers don't believe in the same things when they all claim to have personally experienced god.