Sorry, but the guy just proved to himself that beyond the 4 dimensional physical experience we have no clue and are calling something God which we cannot put a finition on. That is typical de-finition and has no meaning. Naming something without knowing what it is.
This leaves us with purely personal experience of what is called God....by whatever finiton based on your experience, or rather .... opinion.
Hence, the God question has not come into the realm of science. Phenomenon, hypothesis-> test ->proof -> test replication -> same result= proof -> theory.
At least, not yet, although major developments are made into the inquiry of the "super-natural".
Au contraire, mon ami, science and theology were good companions until the contrived modern-day split. Isaac Newton valued his words on theology more highly than any on science yet today they are least valued. The God-question was fully in the realm of science since early scientists were intensely theistic.
I agree it's a cop-out, the de-finition, because it suggests we are not capable of the how, where or when of God while Buddhist or Sufi processes, many of them devotional, can remove the veils or obscurations to understanding. Christ fasting in the desert is an example of following a process for removing obscuration.
That was excellent!
God is allowing us ( as a society ) to destroy ourselves until we turn to him.
Only at the precipice will people find the will to change.
Excellent!
Sorry, but the guy just proved to himself that beyond the 4 dimensional physical experience we have no clue and are calling something God which we cannot put a finition on. That is typical de-finition and has no meaning. Naming something without knowing what it is.
This leaves us with purely personal experience of what is called God....by whatever finiton based on your experience, or rather .... opinion.
Hence, the God question has not come into the realm of science. Phenomenon, hypothesis-> test ->proof -> test replication -> same result= proof -> theory. At least, not yet, although major developments are made into the inquiry of the "super-natural".
Au contraire, mon ami, science and theology were good companions until the contrived modern-day split. Isaac Newton valued his words on theology more highly than any on science yet today they are least valued. The God-question was fully in the realm of science since early scientists were intensely theistic.
I agree it's a cop-out, the de-finition, because it suggests we are not capable of the how, where or when of God while Buddhist or Sufi processes, many of them devotional, can remove the veils or obscurations to understanding. Christ fasting in the desert is an example of following a process for removing obscuration.
Well said. I hadn't thought about it in that aspect before. Thank you.