-
Can God Be A Scientific Phenomenon?
As we say that universe is created by a creator which is god, but it’s also possible that universe is created by a Science phenomena and that phenomena is out of space and time and matter and beyond the understanding of human mind. why we always select god when it’s also possible that an science phenomena can create this universe?
-
15 Replies
-
Can God Be A Scientific Phenomenon?
updated 11 months, 4 weeks ago
4 Members
·
15
Replies
-
Only those things that can be observed can be the subjects of scientific investigation. Once a certain phenomenon is observed, scientifically we can also make testable and falsifiable inferences from it. But a phenomenon that is, in and of itself, beyond space and time cannot be deemed as a subject of scientific inquiry.
Our observations can only lead us to conclude that we and this entire universe seem to be created. After this point, we need guidance of a messenger of God whom God directly communicates with. Through this messenger, God confirms to us that our initial conclusion was indeed correct, and that this universe is created by God so that He may test us. He also tells us that the purpose of this test is to select people for God’s paradise. Whoever is selected to enter this paradise shall be granted an eternal life of joy and comfort. On the other hand, those who deny this message from God after recognizing it as truth shall endure a lot of pain and suffering in the afterlife.
-
In the second part of the answer, where you are saying that God conveyed His message to us through the prophets, this is something that we cannot present as an evidence. Yes, we can say that this is my faith. It is not like a scientific fact, in which we stand at the point of absolute surety like many scientists agree that Earth revolves around the sun!
Should I create a separate thread on this topic?
-
It will be better if u make a topic one it shamir I will love to know Ur thoughts
-
God is having intelligence so if God want to tell something to his creation that will compose of fact and that words will having no mistakes can logically clam that this is a word of God not the word of creation
-
If we consider the message that we claim to be from God, it mostly describes things that are after our death, so we can’t test it on this world. There are certain things that are stated about this world, so we should necessarily see if they are true or not. If there is anything wrong in it, we can say that it is nothing more than a human words.
-
-
… God conveyed His message to us through the prophets, this is something that we cannot present as an evidence. Yes, we can say that this is my faith. It is not like a scientific fact, in which we stand at the point of absolute surety like many scientists agree that Earth revolves around the sun!
As I stated in my earlier response, certain things are observational, while others are inferences from those observations. It is true that the observed phenomenon cannot be denied. Inferences, on the other hand, can at most lead us to conclusions beyond a reasonable doubt. Earth revolving around the sun has become an observational phenomenon for us in the recent times. However, many things in science are still inferences. For example, we infer the existence of subatomic particles like quarks by studying the behavior of larger particles in expensive particle accelerators. Without considering inference as a source of knowledge, there will not be much left for science to accomplish.
Just like inference is a source of knowledge, established historical facts is another source of knowledge. Without considering it as a source of knowledge, we would lose an enormous amount of context, for example in social sciences.
It is also important to understand that things that are not observational in nature, but are still established beyond a reasonable doubt are not invalid evidences for any given argument. It is true that based on new discoveries, they can be falsified at a future point in time. However, until such discoveries are made, it is irrational to deny them. For example, before we put our foot on the ground in order to walk, we believe that gravity will still be around and work as it has always worked. This is not an observational fact, but in fact an inference from our past experiences which forms a belief beyond a reasonable doubt, enabling us to go about our lives. A large majority of things that we do as human beings are in fact based on such beliefs beyond reasonable doubts. We even put criminals in jails or give them capital punishments according to the same principle, even when we have no absolute certainty.
In conclusion, the key thing to understand is that it is impossible for human beings to function only according to undeniable observational facts, as absolute certainty is impossible to achieve in many things. However, we must neither believe in baseless myths, nor should we deny things that are already established beyond a reasonable doubt. This is the path of a true truth seeker, and this is also the required behavior in the field of science. If and when new discoveries refute our prior beliefs, we must remain open to accepting them and changing our course accordingly.
-
How science works, combining this topic with metaphysics, is this a valid approach? I would like to know more about this. Also, I am never saying whether God or any other supernatural being exists or not, it was not my subject. Religion is a great thing for giving us an answer to mysteries in the world and other things we don’t know, but how true it is, is a different matter. Before we set foot on earth we believe or know that gravity exists, we observe it every day, but whether a religious God exists remains a question.
-
-
Both science and metaphysics are domains of knowledge. Knowledge functions in the same manner regardless of its application.
Secondly, we do not see gravity everyday; in fact we can never directly observe gravity itself. Gravity is a fundamental force of nature that acts between all objects with mass. While we can observe its effects on objects and the behavior of celestial bodies, we cannot see, touch, or directly perceive gravity as a physical entity. In other words, gravity is not an observed phenomenon, but in fact an inference from an observed phenomenon.
-
Without any kind of doubt we are assured that gravity works and we just can’t observe it directly but still it is working. Does the same principle apply on the existence of God? But are we observing it in the same way in our daily routine? Yes, according to the environment in which we are born, we have our faith or belief in it. And again, I am always convinced of the existence of God or you can name anything beyond human understanding. I am not saying that he does not exist, but the problem is that he is so complex that we cannot say anything about him.
I think my questions are different from this current thread, it would be better if you transfer it to a separate thread.
-
-
Yes, precisely the same principle applies to God. Just like we conclude the existence of a force called gravity by observing its effects, we conclude the existence of any entity called God by observing His creation. There is no logical difference in these arguments.
-
Science is based of logic and the universe required a creator which is logical my question on this topic is this that which one is our creator a god a phanomena or a something else created space and matter and I want to prove 100 percent to prove that god created this universe nor a phanomena or something else
-
Brother I admire ur thinking.
Question is how can we prove that universe is created by God or some scientific phenomena or an accident or a conscious being that could be an alien civilization or a God very different than our God like Zeus or Krishna or Ra
Second part is that u like to prove it 100%
Let’s deal with this first, can u name anything that u or humans can prove 100%?
-
-
I believe their is a creator but who exactly is
-
Complexity will force us to see above this world!
-
But it can be a very unbelievable coincidence
-
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
